Perspective from athiests/agnostics

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

I would like a different perspective on some matters, particularly the perspective of atheist/agnostics.

It seems a little strange to hear someone claim they don't believe in god when the term is seldom clearly defined in conversation. So I thought it might be better to ask people, "what/who do you worship?"

By worship, I don't necessarily mean grovel before something. What I mean is what do you center your life around? What do you sacrifice for? I think it is commonly accepted that everyone worships something, money, sex, power etc. In other words there is something in everyone's life that they are willing to sacrifice great amounts for.

[Arkansas Paul]

Firstly, I don't really know what I am.
I suppose agnostic is a good enough term, so I will weigh in.



So I thought it might be better to ask people, "what/who do you worship?"

I don't worship anything or anyone in the sense that I pray to something, or think something or someone is looking out for me.


I think it is commonly accepted that everyone worships something, money, sex, power etc. In other words there is something in everyone's life that they are willing to sacrifice great amounts for.

I don't agree that everyone worships something. The definitions that I have read all clearly define worship as a religious ritual, or admiration for a deity.
As far as what I center my life around and what I am willing to sacrifice great amounts for, that one is easy.
I have a wife and daughter that I would go the ends of the Earth for. I would spend and be spent for them.
When I was younger I may have included money in that assessment, but the older I get, the more I tend to focus on family over money.

[T_McD]

I agree I don’t know what term fits me.

I center my life on my family. I don’t derive a higher purpose from philosophical ideas. I enjoy the thought experiment, but I don’t base my morality on abstract thinking.

I do believe in a higher power but my belief falls well short of identifying with any particular religion.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Firstly, I don't really know what I am.
I suppose agnostic is a good enough term, so I will weigh in.




I don't worship anything or anyone in the sense that I pray to something, or think something or someone is looking out for me.



I don't agree that everyone worships something. The definitions that I have read all clearly define worship as a religious ritual, or admiration for a deity.
As far as what I center my life around and what I am willing to sacrifice great amounts for, that one is easy.
I have a wife and daughter that I would go the ends of the Earth for. I would spend and be spent for them.
When I was younger I may have included money in that assessment, but the older I get, the more I tend to focus on family over money.

I guess you did answer the question in the end, however I clearly stated that by "worhip" I did not mean groveling (or religious ritual as you put it). Rather, I had intended that for the purposes of this thread, worship was to mean "center your life around, make great sacrifices for..." And to that end you did answer, and admirably.

So do you put demands on your family? Do you expect them to serve or follow you? Could you ever make a decision that would cost your entire family?

[Arkansas Paul]

So do you put demands on your family? Do you expect them to serve or follow you?

My marriage is a partnership.
My wife works her pretty derriere off every day just like I do (makes more $ than me in fact). While I am not religious, I like the way the Bible speaks of married couples as becoming "one flesh".
There are no demands, other than loyalty. And that demand is just as much placed on me as it is her. And that isn't even so much a demand as it is just a necessary component of a monogamous relationship. My wife feels the same way.
I do not expect her or my daughter to serve me. We all serve one another at different times because that's what people who love one another do.
In my opinion, love does not make demands and demand service. Love is unconditional, or it isn't love at all.


Could you ever make a decision that would cost your entire family?

Not intentionally.

[Omega]

I would like a different perspective on some matters, particularly the perspective of atheist/agnostics.

It seems a little strange to hear someone claim they don't believe in god when the term is seldom clearly defined in conversation. So I thought it might be better to ask people, "what/who do you worship?"

By worship, I don't necessarily mean grovel before something. What I mean is what do you center your life around? What do you sacrifice for? I think it is commonly accepted that everyone worships something, money, sex, power etc. In other words there is something in everyone's life that they are willing to sacrifice great amounts for.
I'll take a crack at this, first I guess I lean more to Agnostic though I don't quite feel that title specifically relates to me. I do not, not believe, so much as I do not know. There is enough information to go either way with this, that I just can't make that jump either way. I do not recoil when asked to pray with someone; I will not admonish anyone for believing the way they do, but I definately do not react well when I'm told I am going to hell (or try to kill me) because I don't believe the way they do. I try and make life choices for the good, you know the whole treat others as you would like to be treated thing. I've studied religion(s), grew up Catholic, but the more I question the more that I move outside the norm of an organized religion.

I will accept your one time definition of worship; I guess first is family, then our country both of whom I have worked to advance/maintain. My priority was to provide my family with everything they needed and sacrifice as much as I needed to to acomplish that. I also felt I owed this country my service, so I joined the military and with that decision acomplished both. I do not require any reciprocation of my sacrifice, just that they, my family, make use of the opportunities afforded to them when at all possible, our country, well, I am an American no matter what.

[dverna]

As an former atheist, there was no entity I worshiped or even thought about.

Atheists are rather self sufficient (some self absorbed?) and do not "need" a god to be fulfilled. I valued family and friends.

BTW, people can live a good and honest life without God (or a god) to answer to. Atheists do so not out of fear of the wrath of God but because of what is right.

[T_McD]

BTW, people can live a good and honest life without God (or a god) to answer to. Atheists do so not out of fear of the wrath of God but because of what is right.

This is a rather fundamental issue. Morality is distinct from any deity.

[1hole]

I once heard a wise Phd Christian give a slightly amusing definition of Atheist, Agnostic and Christian that's worth repeating.

* An atheist is a really smart fellow who is certain no one could possibly know more about anything than he so he knows there is no God no matter what you may know.

* An agnostic is also a really smart fellow but he has no idea of what he doesn't know.

* A Christian is someone who has personal knowledge of God and really doesn't care what the other two think of him.

There's a lot of sound knowledge to chew on in that.

[nueces5]

Very much in agreement with Arkansas Paul. I feel identified with your words. And I add: the only thing that generates admiration is when a human being does something for another human being without expecting anything in return. Teresa of Calcutta, for example, worked and dedicated her life to others, with nothing in return for it. That for me is worthy of admiration.

[dtknowles]

I sacrifice for virtue, the planet and those virtuous people I care about.

Tim

[Bigslug]

My own freedom & happiness, which depends on / extends to the well being of a small handful of people.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

I like Dtknowles answer the best so far.

If you put family at the center of your life, do you risk becoming a helicopter parent?

If you put your country at the center of your life, do you risk becoming a nationalist, like the French soldiers under Napolean?

And if you put the planet at the center of your life do you risk becoming an abortion-supporting overpopulationist? (I liked the part about sacrificing for virtue best)

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

My own freedom & happiness, which depends on / extends to the well being of a small handful of people.

Your own freedom and happiness is what you put at the center of your life? How is that not the seed of narcissism?

[T_McD]

Your own freedom and happiness is what you put at the center of your life? How is that not the seed of narcissism?

Who can honestly say they aren’t selfish creatures at heart. I am o my willing to sacrifice for a small group of people. MY group of people.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Who can honestly say they aren’t selfish creatures at heart. I am o my willing to sacrifice for a small group of people. MY group of people.

I suppose, you got a point. Even the sacrifices of the greatest Christian saint are done so that they can be with God (and happy for eternity). Yet, selfish impulses are something to be mastered, you don't let them control your life - thus you don't put them at the center of your life.

[Arkansas Paul]

If you put family at the center of your life, do you risk becoming a helicopter parent?


There is certainly a balancing act in effect, and some people don't do very well with that.
Just because family is the center of my life, doesn't mean I place unrealistic demands or expectations on them.
They are the center of my life because they are the thing that I love more than me.
I want my daughter to be independent. I want her to find her own way.
I don't want to control every aspect of her life, I want to enjoy watching her grow up and form her own opinions and decide for herself what she believes and what she does with her life.

[T_McD]

I suppose, you got a point. Even the sacrifices of the greatest Christian saint are done so that they can be with God (and happy for eternity). Yet, selfish impulses are something to be mastered, you don't let them control your life - thus you don't put them at the center of your life.

You seem to be missing the point. Altruism doesn’t exist, we are all motivated by selfish desires. For some, religion offers relief from life’s stressors.... it’s selfish.

Selfish is not bad when tempered by morality.

[lefty o]

I once heard a wise Phd Christian give a slightly amusing definition of Atheist, Agnostic and Christian that's worth repeating.

* An atheist is a really smart fellow who is certain no one could possibly know more about anything than he so he knows there is no God no matter what you may know.

* An agnostic is also a really smart fellow but he has no idea of what he doesn't know.

* A Christian is someone who has personal knowledge of God and really doesn't care what the other two think of him.

There's a lot of sound knowledge to chew on in that.

there is definately a bunch of truth to this. i would also add that those who arent secure in their beliefs be it #1,2, or 3 sure seem to get upset when others discuss the possibilities.

[EDG]

Not really. Christians make up the majority of the photos at the post office.


I once heard a wise Phd Christian give a slightly amusing definition of Atheist, Agnostic and Christian that's worth repeating.

* An atheist is a really smart fellow who is certain no one could possibly know more about anything than he so he knows there is no God no matter what you may know.

* An agnostic is also a really smart fellow but he has no idea of what he doesn't know.

* A Christian is someone who has personal knowledge of God and really doesn't care what the other two think of him.

There's a lot of sound knowledge to chew on in that.

[EDG]

Why does it seem strange?
Within the human race there are hundreds or maybe millions of gods. It is a guaranteed fact that if you are a believer in a single god (monotheism) you do not believe in any of the rest of them. An atheist simply believes in one less god than you. So to most of the universe your one god belief means you are an atheist to all gods except one.
However strange and goofy you think atheists, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus,etc. are you have to know that they think your beliefs are just as unusual. Even more telling is the fact that most of you believers only adopt the faith of your parents and culture. That is not a real logical and error free process.


I would like a different perspective on some matters, particularly the perspective of atheist/agnostics.

It seems a little strange to hear someone claim they don't believe in god when the term is seldom clearly defined in conversation. So I thought it might be better to ask people, "what/who do you worship?"

By worship, I don't necessarily mean grovel before something. What I mean is what do you center your life around? What do you sacrifice for? I think it is commonly accepted that everyone worships something, money, sex, power etc. In other words there is something in everyone's life that they are willing to sacrifice great amounts for.

[Arkansas Paul]

Within the human race there are hundreds or maybe millions of gods. It is a guaranteed fact that if you are a believer in a single god (monotheism) you do not believe in any of the rest of them. An atheist simply believes in one less god than you. So to most of the universe your one god belief means you are an atheist to all gods except one.

I have used this logic many time before.
If there were 5,000 gods being worshipped today, Christians would not believe in 4,999 or them.
I just take it one god further. The evidence for all of them is the same.

So without evidence, I have to focus my life and my efforts on things I know exist.
I don't know if there is a god or not. But I know that I won't let one day of the life I know exists to be wasted.

[Rizzo]

.........
So without evidence, I have to focus my life and my efforts on things I know exist.
I don't know if there is a god or not. But I know that I won't let one day of the life I know exists to be wasted.

So, from what I just read you do not believe there is a God.
Does that mean you are a believer of the Big Bang Theory to explain this beautiful earth we all live on?

Or, is the jury still out on this one for you.
Just curious. Thanks.

[dverna]

So, from what I just read you do not believe there is a God.
Does that mean you are a believer of the Big Bang Theory to explain this beautiful earth we all live on?

Or, is the jury still out on this one for you.
Just curious. Thanks.

Actually the BBT was first proposed by a Roman Catholic priest. This priest still believed that God created everything, but obviously was not a New Earth advocate. Only the most conservative Christians still cling to the New Earth concept. Other Christians accept that science can not be completely ignored and see Creation over a much longer time period than 6 -24 hour days. Look up the Gap Theory for further edification if interested.

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/faith-and-science/a-day-without-yesterday-georges-lemaitre-amp-the-big-bang.html

[Bigslug]

Your own freedom and happiness is what you put at the center of your life? How is that not the seed of narcissism?

Is perceiving the problems of total strangers as NOT MINE TO SOLVE narcissistic??? Guess I'll just keep watering that seed.

[dtknowles]

Is perceiving the problems of total strangers as NOT MINE TO SOLVE narcissistic??? Guess I'll just keep watering that seed.

Yes, does your life make those of total strangers better or worse. If you don't care about people you have never met and are not likely to meet then you might be a narcissist. You probably aren't a narcissist, you probably hold doors for strangers and make it easier for them to merge into traffic. You probably contribute to charities that help total strangers. Total strangers and the wider world is full of problems and if you aren't helping solve them then you are one more of the problems and a narcissist.

Tim

[Arkansas Paul]

So, from what I just read you do not believe there is a God.
Does that mean you are a believer of the Big Bang Theory to explain this beautiful earth we all live on?

Or, is the jury still out on this one for you.
Just curious. Thanks.

I certainly am a believer in the big bang theory.
The question of whether it was orchestrated by God is where the jury is still out for me.

I asked a question in another thread, regarding whether firm believers could reconcile faith and science, if God did indeed speak everything into existence, could it mimic a big bang.
The Catholic church seems to have no problem reconciling the two. Pope Francis said that the big bang does not contradict a divine act of creation. He is also quoted as saying that the evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with him, I'm just using that as an example that a lot of people believe that you can believe in science, and believe that is the way God chose to do things.

I'm sure the Catholic church isn't alone in this. I am also aware that individuals in all religions/denominations have their own thoughts on the subject that may or may not line up with the official view of their particular church's creed.

[Arkansas Paul]

Is perceiving the problems of total strangers as NOT MINE TO SOLVE narcissistic??? Guess I'll just keep watering that seed.

I don't think so.
I think we use the word "narcissist" a little too loosely.

Narcissism is more than just caring only about yourself.

To be considered a narcissist, one must exhibit at least 5 of the following traits (this is from the DSM).

(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

(4) requires excessive admiration

(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Simply caring more about your family than the family across the street isn't narcissism.
I guess you could call it selfish and be somewhat accurate, but I think most of us fall into that category to some degree.

[Wag]

I was raised in a cult religion. I've said that before on here and was roundly chastised for using the term, "cult." But it's what I believe about that particular religion/cult. I suppose that if the adherents to a belief don't have horns and tails, some believe that it's somehow not a cult. I digress.

About 20 years ago, I kicked that cult to the curb and extricated myself from it and shortly after, my late wife did so as well. Our marriage continually improved ever after from that time forward until she eventually succumbed to her lifelong illness. Indeed, her illness was less pervasive for several years after we left that church and there's no indication that it would have been any better or worse had we stayed in the religion. Again, I digress.

After kicking the church out of our lives, I did a ton of soul searching about what I really believed and at the end of it all, I realized that not only did I believe that there is no god, I never really had believed it. I reflected back on some of the answers I had gotten to my questions, even when I was as young as seven and eight years old and remembered that while I didn't believe, the people in my life who I trusted were most likely to tell me, "God will provide your answers if you remain faithful."

Over the rest of my time as an adherent, I never got any answers. And yet, many people would stand and proclaim that after a life of debauchery, they had repented and god had given them the answers they needed to be faithful. I was faithful and didn't get any answers. That juxtaposition was a quandary to me for a very long time. Finally, my own final crisis of faith led to me my current belief (the story of that crisis is a story in and of itself for another time.)

For a while, I searched for a way to believe in god, to find his religion out there. Then, I was pretty angry, not at a god who I had ceased to believe even existed. No, I was angry that I had wasted my life in fear and uncertainty, being manipulated by guilt, being told and convinced that I was a piece of trash in god's eyes. I discovered that those in the cult were never going to love anyone they considered, "evil," including my own family.

As the anger died out over the next couple of years, I realized that I really didn't care any more. By then, my family had completely ostracized us and didn't want anything to do with us any more and we completely lost track of them. I still have a talking relationship with one of my brothers and occasionally, I'll hear something about the family but they really don't want anything to do with me.

One item of note that I've discovered is that religion is somewhat of a choice for people. Regrettably, people have a difficult time explaining why they chose a particular belief. It's a question that is begged when the topic arises and I believe the answer lies in where we're born. It's assuredly true that the huge majority of people adhere to the religion of their parentage. Very rare that people change their childhood beliefs. If dare to speculate, it's easy to believe that you could change the belief of your children simply by practicing a different religion than the one you believe in.

Various other atheists I know who were raised without any religious teachings simply don't care either.

So, what do I believe as an atheist? Treat other people well. Pretty simple. It encompasses all of the things that many religions teach and yet, it doesn't require fear and manipulation to accomplish a good end. As for an afterlife, I don't believe there is one. That motivates me to live this one as well as I possibly can.

Is there good in various religions and the adherents to religions? Yes there is. Are there evil people in religions? Of course there are. In atheists? You betcha. Every cross-section of our lives includes a portion of good and evil, whether it's church, law enforcement, government, schools, various races and cultures, your employers, science and any other grouping you can think of. It's why judging individuals without consideration of the person as a whole is just a bad idea. That wasn't as clear as it could have been. In short, you can't know a person's beliefs because of what label you put on them. All people have several or many labels and groupings and you can't know what a person believes.

Including all of those cross sections above. I'm amazed and how bigoted people are toward me when I mention I don't believe in a supreme being. It only serves to reinforce the idea that I've made the right choice.

--Wag--

[Rizzo]

Wag,
Thanks for sharing your views.
Your post was interesting to me.

It is sad to read that you and your family are not speaking.
Not knowing the specifics, I don't know the whole picture but perhaps take a step up and contact them to re-establish the family?
Maybe you have tried that already though.
<sigh>

[T_McD]

Ah yes the thorny issue of religion not demonstrably solving life’s problems..... it tends to beg the question of “why bother?”

The simple fact remains that it takes the same amount of mental gymnastics to believe or disbelieve

[1hole]

I was raised in a cult religion. I've said that before on here and was roundly chastised for using the term, "cult." But it's what I believe about that particular religion/cult. I suppose that if the adherents to a belief don't have horns and tails, some believe that it's somehow not a cult. I digress.


Three short points:

* A cult is any religion that does not teach that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah AND adds any "special revelation" from outside the Bible AND has hoops that people must jump through, or leaders to submit to, to earn God's love is, by definition, a cult. Objest to that? Well, call a rose any name you want but a rose by any name is still a rose. As my dear old granny used to say "Like it or lump it boy, that's the way it is."

* Sometimes it's hard to believe some professing "christians" are indeed Christian. I'm a longtime Christian with a wide range of family and friends, sadly, some of them adhere to a cult but none of them are demonic. They are spiritually deluded but none of them are stupid or mean. In fact, as a group, I love them and find most of them are among the nicest people I know. Wish I could say as much for everyone professing the name of Christ.

* Perhaps most sadly, some of the most unpleasant people I have even known are professing Christians who seem to love to kick people who don't believe the same as themselves. That is not effective outreach and is NOT what scripture tells us to do!


Note to Wag:

You haven't made the right choice yet. You're taking the actions and attitudes of a few people as representative of Christianity; that's a mistake.

[EDG]

Not really.
Say you are born to a cave man in the middle of no where. You live your life and die.
You are never exposed to any religion. That is the natural state of man growing up and living in a pre-civilized world. Humans lived that way about 100,000 years. It is only in the last 10,000 or so years that all of these goofy religions have become popular. However the pattern seems to be given enough time religions tend to come and go. So eventually the religions of today will eventually be forgotten.


Ah yes the thorny issue of religion not demonstrably solving life’s problems..... it tends to beg the question of “why bother?”

The simple fact remains that it takes the same amount of mental gymnastics to believe or disbelieve

[1hole]

Not really. Christians make up the majority of the photos at the post office.

Goodness! Do you actually think Christians are a majority of criminals? On what AOC metric are you claiming that?

I mean, it is my (easily defendable) position that Christians are the the world's leading defenders of the powerless, not their oppressors! What insider information do you have that the rest of us don't?

[T_McD]

Not really.
Say you are born to a cave man in the middle of no where. You live your life and die.
You are never exposed to any religion. That is the natural state of man growing up and living in a pre-civilized world. Humans lived that way about 100,000 years. It is only in the last 10,000 or so years that all of these goofy religions have become popular. However the pattern seems to be given enough time religions tend to come and go. So eventually the religions of today will eventually be forgotten.

I should clarify that belief in a higher power is distinct from religion. I can be persuaded that a God exists, but that is a far cry from saying “xyz” religion is correct.

[Arkansas Paul]

Wag,
A lot of what you said resonates with me. A LOT of it.

Every aspect of my life was controlled by religion. Women were treated horribly. Every command given was delivered with a threat of eternal punishment attached to it.
There is no doubt if I would have visited a psychologist in my early teens I would have been diagnosed with something. I was a constant nervous wreck. I lost weight because every time I tried to eat I got sick. I was in constant fear that I would go to hell. Nothing was ever good enough.
Then I had a daughter, and shortly after decided that she was not going to be raised in that environment. So at first we changed churches to one that believed similar theological doctrine, but was a little more lax on the rules. Then we quit altogether. Now I go to church with my mother on Mother's Day and my father on Father's Day.

Fortunately, I still have a relationship with my family. Don't get me wrong, they believe I'm going to be tortured for eternity, but we are still on very good terms.

[UKShootist]

1) Atheism is a belief that there is no God. That requires the same faith or belief as anyone who believes there IS a God.

2) Faith does not require proof, it requires a lack of proof. If you have proof then it's science.

3) It is utterly pointless to ask anybody about God. Near everyone, even in the same church, mosque, temple, or Coronary Care Unit, has different interpretations of their holy book.

4) I don't know if there's a God or Gods or not.

5) I'm quite prepared to accept that there might be a God.

6) Looking at the world, I am utterly convinced that if there is a God, He (She?) Ain't very nice at all.

7) I try and live in a manner that hurts as few people as possible, I've made quite a few failures on that score but I honestly regret them.

8) If there is a God and He turns out to be a nice old Geezer then I think I am likely to fare reasonably well. If He is as big a ragbag as I think He could be then we're all stuffed anyway.

9) The nearest I get to any religion is Zen Buddhism. This is more of a philosophy that a religion (N.B. Zen, not the other man made religions that badly represent the teachings of Buddha, many of which I disagree with.) It's all about understanding and truth. The truth, like the law, is what it is and not what you want it to be or think it ought to be. You mostly don't know it.

10) If you think truth can be found in the Bible, or any other holy book then find another person who believes the same and then go word for word though the bible and if you don't agree on every word and why it's there, then there can be no truth, just opinions.

[Sig556r]

Science as we know it now is still very much limited...with the advent of viable clues that blackholes do exist & may very well be at the center of how galaxies were formed, time relativity as theorized by Einstein remains a mystery...
To question the creation of the universe in only 6 days (He rested on the 7th) is questioning the basic theory of relativity...earth or even our solar system, is not even a dot in the milky way which itself is minuscule compared to the infinite cosmic expansion...time concept is relative & basing universe creation argument on earthly measures is like believing that the universe revolves around the earth, a concept believed by many until Copernicus proved otherwise.

[UKShootist]

Science v faith. I cannot know all of science, even the scientists don't know it all. But, like breaking the sound barrier, when you find previously unknown facts you can accept them in science. Faith faced with evidence of it's falsity required mental gymnastics to overcome the plain truth. Some Bible followers (I cannot call then Christian) believe the earth is around 4,000 years old. This by information given in the bible. When questioned about dinosaur fossils they will argue that they were put in the earth by God to test peoples faith, a mean trick by any standards. When carbon dating is mentioned they will poo poo it as inaccurate science because they can't, or more likely won't, understand it. I can only think of such people as fools. I would recommend watching the film "Inherit The Wind". A Hollywood representation to be sure, of the 'Stopes Monkey Trial'. For those who cannot accept the possibility of humans evolving from apes, I would merely ask, who are you to judge how a God might produce humans?

P.S. I do not believe that I have said anything that would contradict the possibility of Jesus being pretty much what the Bible says He was.

[T_McD]

Science v faith. I cannot know all of science, even the scientists don't know it all. But, like breaking the sound barrier, when you find previously unknown facts you can accept them in science. Faith faced with evidence of it's falsity required mental gymnastics to overcome the plain truth. Some Bible followers (I cannot call then Christian) believe the earth is around 4,000 years old. This by information given in the bible. When questioned about dinosaur fossils they will argue that they were put in the earth by God to test peoples faith, a mean trick by any standards. When carbon dating is mentioned they will poo poo it as inaccurate science because they can't, or more likely won't, understand it. I can only think of such people as fools. I would recommend watching the film "Inherit The Wind". A Hollywood representation to be sure, of the 'Stopes Monkey Trial'. For those who cannot accept the possibility of humans evolving from apes, I would merely ask, who are you to judge how a God might produce humans?

P.S. I do not believe that I have said anything that would contradict the possibility of Jesus being pretty much what the Bible says He was.

I am mostly in agreement with you, but then you brought up carbon dating.... it’s junk science. I have the same high standards of proof for science as I do religion. Any claim of certainty regarding origin of life must have an incredible amount of proof along with it. Today’s science relies on consensus too much for my taste. Evolution as a mechanism of change in a species is well documented fact. Evolution as a means for life’s origin is not only speculative but requires that other biological concepts be violated.

“We don’t know” remains the best answer for the origin of life.

[dverna]

Science v faith. I cannot know all of science, even the scientists don't know it all. But, like breaking the sound barrier, when you find previously unknown facts you can accept them in science. Faith faced with evidence of it's falsity required mental gymnastics to overcome the plain truth. Some Bible followers (I cannot call then Christian) believe the earth is around 4,000 years old. This by information given in the bible. When questioned about dinosaur fossils they will argue that they were put in the earth by God to test peoples faith, a mean trick by any standards. When carbon dating is mentioned they will poo poo it as inaccurate science because they can't, or more likely won't, understand it. I can only think of such people as fools. I would recommend watching the film "Inherit The Wind". A Hollywood representation to be sure, of the 'Stopes Monkey Trial'. For those who cannot accept the possibility of humans evolving from apes, I would merely ask, who are you to judge how a God might produce humans?

P.S. I do not believe that I have said anything that would contradict the possibility of Jesus being pretty much what the Bible says He was.

Our pastor believes the universe is 6-10k years old based on the Bible. These last few weeks we have focused on Genesis and he made a point of ridiculing science to a chorus of “amens” from a few in the congregation. What fools. Our pastor is intelligent and it amazes me he believes what he believes.

Faith is a negative quality when it gets in the way of common sense and reality.

[Arkansas Paul]

1) Atheism is a belief that there is no God. That requires the same faith or belief as anyone who believes there IS a God.


I disagree to a point.
Yes believing there is no god requires faith in the sense that you believe in something with no evidence. But you can't prove a negative.

It is the same faith people have that fairies and leprechauns don't exist. You can't prove a negative, so any time you believe something does not exist, there is a certain amount of faith in that sense.

But it is the same kind of faith that I don't believe Bigfoot or fairies exist. (I am not comparing religious people to those who believe in fairies, it's just an example).

And unlike the majority of religious people, most atheists would change their minds in the face of evidence.
My father is a good man and I love him dearly, but if he read in the Bible that 2+2 equaled 5, he would re-evaluate the way he thought about mathematics, not the way he thought about his faith.

[popper]

I am neither of the listed.
1) A god is not a personal genie.
2) If humans are an accident or 'evolution' then morality makes NO sense.
3) if there is truly a God/Creator and you don't care about God, that God probably won't care about YOU. Only counts if you believe there is existence after the physical body quits. And we have NO proof of that either.
4) The definition of agnostic I've heard is someone who wants to play both sides of the fence.

[Arkansas Paul]

4) The definition of agnostic I've heard is someone who wants to play both sides of the fence.


I have heard it put that an agnostic is an atheist with no umm............courage.

I don't know that I agree. I was taught all my life that God exists. Now I have questions. I'm not convinced. I don't know if that is wanting to play both sides of the fence or not. Perhaps it is. I just don't claim to know for sure either way.

[UKShootist]

I am neither of the listed.

I don't think I can let this one run unchallenged!:bigsmyl2:


1) A god is not a personal genie.

The would depend upon which God you are talking about, whether he, or any others exist, and what your definition of a genie is.


2) If humans are an accident or 'evolution' then morality makes NO sense.

Simply not true. You would be surprised at how much morality there is in a chimpanzee colony. Again, though, define morality. In some societies it is considered utterly moral and honourable to kill your daughter for associating with a man from outside your society. Morals are man made and usually involve the control of others. It is considered immoral to kill another human being without good cause. Ignoring for a moment the definition of 'good cause', any society that did not have this moral imperative will not last long.


3) if there is truly a God/Creator and you don't care about God, that God probably won't care about YOU.

Well, apart from going against most scriptures that doesn't seem to say much about that God, but then I have already said that IMO if there is a God, he's not very nice at all.


Only counts if you believe there is existence after the physical body quits. And we have NO proof of that either.

True, you've got to wait to find out.


4) The definition of agnostic I've heard is someone who wants to play both sides of the fence.

That definition is wrong. In fact, it's the sort of thing a rather bigoted religious person might say. An agnostic just doesn't know and doubts that anyone can know. But whoever you heard say to will no doubt be comfortably smug in his wit, albeit he will only be half right.

[EDG]

It is nothing but a statistic.
What insider information do you have that Christians are all so goody goody.
The jails are full of them and you know it.


Goodness! Do you actually think Christians are a majority of criminals? On what AOC metric are you claiming that?

I mean, it is my (easily defendable) position that Christians are the the world's leading defenders of the powerless, not their oppressors! What insider information do you have that the rest of us don't?

[Arkansas Paul]

Goodness! Do you actually think Christians are a majority of criminals? On what AOC metric are you claiming that?

I mean, it is my (easily defendable) position that Christians are the the world's leading defenders of the powerless, not their oppressors! What insider information do you have that the rest of us don't?

I think it's just a statistics thing.
The U.S. has a high percentage of Christians. Thus, most criminals claim to be Christian. It's simply because most Americans are Christian.
Just like if you were in India, most criminals would be Hindus.

That is not an insult to the particular religion, and does not mean that Christians have a higher percentage of criminals than other religions or non-believers. Just the sheer numbers make it almost where it almost has to be that way.

[1hole]

Well EDG, you're "just "quoting" statistics? I have to wonder where those statistics came from and who you think is a "Christian". Quote whatever you wish and believe whatever fiction fits your chosen narrative of the day but that won't make your quotes valid. IF you have such a survey, I challenge it.

We all know statistics don't lie. But most of us also know that "expert" statisticians do lie, they often lie to fit the perceived desires of their audience. (How are the statistics for the Hag's well known landslide presidential victory going these days, is she still losing?) I seriously doubt any real statisticians have ever even attempted to poll enough criminals to gather the preposterous data you quote.

Few non-Christians have a clue how to separate those who really are Christian from those who just claim to be ... do you? Surely you know that just claiming to be a Christian isn't being; like, if I were a "liberal" politician, for political gain I might proudly claim to be at least 0.0001% American Indian by blood and a few gullible dummies would almost certainly believe me but my claim would be bogus! See what I mean; if we aren't careful about what attractive "claims" and "statistics" we chose to believe we can become quite gullible and easily be led astray! :)

[EDG]

Challenge away but you know that this is a Christian nation by both history and tradition.
It would have to be some other kind of nation nation for the most common faith among the criminal population to be of another faith. Yo really walked into this one leading with your chin. Did you really think that no such survey or statistic existed? Of course it exists bubba. Just google the most common religions in the prison population. Are you so biased with religious intolerance that you cannot hazard to seek the facts on your own? I did not identify a single Christian in this - they identified themselves.

It appears that fully 50% are Protestants...14.5% are Catholic
https://www.statista.com/statistics/234653/religious-affiliation-of-us-prisoners/

A different set of numbers with a similar result.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/



So you were saying obviously without any investigation or facts?
Here are the data. Notice the vast preponderance of Christian religious affiliations? What did you expect it to be? Surely you did not expect the prisons to be full of atheists when they are such a small part of the general population.



RELIGION PRISON POP. GENERAL POP.
Protestant 28.7% 44.0%
Catholic 24.0 25.1
Muslim 8.4 0.6
Native American 3.1 0.1
Pagan 2.0 0.1
Jewish 1.7 1.2
Churches of Christ 1.5 0.8
Buddhist 1.0 0.5
Jehovah’s Witness 0.7 0.8
Seventh Day Adventist 0.3 0.4
Mormon 0.3 1.4
Eastern Orthodox 0.2 0.4
Apostolic 0.2 0.4
Hindu 0.1 0.3
Atheist 0.1 0.7
Pentecostal 0.1 2.4
Sikh <0.1 <0.1







Well EDG, you're "just "quoting" statistics? I have to wonder where those statistics came from and who you think is a "Christian". Quote whatever you wish and believe whatever fiction fits your chosen narrative of the day but that won't make your quotes valid. IF you have such a survey, I challenge it.

We all know statistics don't lie. But most of us also know that "expert" statisticians do lie, they often lie to fit the perceived desires of their audience. (How are the statistics for the Hag's well known landslide presidential victory going these days, is she still losing?) I seriously doubt any real statisticians have ever even attempted to poll enough criminals to gather the preposterous data you quote.

Few non-Christians have a clue how to separate those who really are Christian from those who just claim to be ... do you? Surely you know that just claiming to be a Christian isn't being; like, if I were a "liberal" politician, for political gain I might proudly claim to be at least 0.0001% American Indian by blood and a few gullible dummies would almost certainly believe me but my claim would be bogus! See what I mean; if we aren't careful about what attractive "claims" and "statistics" we chose to believe we can become quite gullible and easily be led astray! :)

[T_McD]

“Few non-Christians have a clue how to separate those who really are Christian from those who just claim to be ... do you?“

In fact I do, and I know with certainty that your feelings on the subject don’t matter.

[Wag]

I wasn't going to post again but there are some posts directed to me so I'll reply.


Wag,
Thanks for sharing your views.
Your post was interesting to me.

It is sad to read that you and your family are not speaking.
Not knowing the specifics, I don't know the whole picture but perhaps take a step up and contact them to re-establish the family?
Maybe you have tried that already though.
<sigh>

I would like to have a good relationship with my family. Truth is, I still love them but the problem is that they are so utterly poisonous that it rubs off and becomes problematic. Some day, perhaps.


You haven't made the right choice yet. You're taking the actions and attitudes of a few people as representative of Christianity; that's a mistake.

Comments like yours make it impossible to have a conversation. It's clear you didn't read my entire post or you didn't understand it. Either way, I'll just refer you to the post again. Also, a comment I'll make below.


Wag,
A lot of what you said resonates with me. A LOT of it.

Every aspect of my life was controlled by religion. Women were treated horribly. Every command given was delivered with a threat of eternal punishment attached to it.
There is no doubt if I would have visited a psychologist in my early teens I would have been diagnosed with something. I was a constant nervous wreck. I lost weight because every time I tried to eat I got sick. I was in constant fear that I would go to hell. Nothing was ever good enough.
Then I had a daughter, and shortly after decided that she was not going to be raised in that environment. So at first we changed churches to one that believed similar theological doctrine, but was a little more lax on the rules. Then we quit altogether. Now I go to church with my mother on Mother's Day and my father on Father's Day.

Fortunately, I still have a relationship with my family. Don't get me wrong, they believe I'm going to be tortured for eternity, but we are still on very good terms.

You're fortunate to have a good relationship with your loved ones.


. . .and I know with certainty that your feelings on the subject don’t matter.

Which is exactly why you're ineffective at having this conversation.

Point is, actually, that such conversations do very little other than for people of common opinion to fluff each other. It's almost unheard of because nobody is willing to listen to each other.

One question I like to ask is, "If you found out your belief is wrong, what would you do?" The question works on either side. The answer is frequently, "I know I'm not wrong." At that point, you can no longer discuss because the mind(s) are closed.

I did discover that my belief was wrong. I changed the course of my life because of it and lost much because of it. But I refuse to be dishonest and continue to live in a way that I know to be wrong. Why would I? That would be the greater lie.

--Wag--

[T_McD]

I wasn't going to post again but there are some posts directed to me so I'll reply.



I would like to have a good relationship with my family. Truth is, I still love them but the problem is that they are so utterly poisonous that it rubs off and becomes problematic. Some day, perhaps.



Comments like yours make it impossible to have a conversation. It's clear you didn't read my entire post or you didn't understand it. Either way, I'll just refer you to the post again. Also, a comment I'll make below.



You're fortunate to have a good relationship with your loved ones.



Which is exactly why you're ineffective at having this conversation.

Point is, actually, that such conversations do very little other than for people of common opinion to fluff each other. It's almost unheard of because nobody is willing to listen to each other.

One question I like to ask is, "If you found out your belief is wrong, what would you do?" The question works on either side. The answer is frequently, "I know I'm not wrong." At that point, you can no longer discuss because the mind(s) are closed.

I did discover that my belief was wrong. I changed the course of my life because of it and lost much because of it. But I refuse to be dishonest and continue to live in a way that I know to be wrong. Why would I? That would be the greater lie.

--Wag--

As far as your quote of me:

I am willing to discuss nearly anything, and am definitely ok being wrong. My tone was in response to the tone given by 1hole. If he is going to put himself on a religious high horse, he should display at least cursory knowledge of his religion.

[EDG]

It seems that the crickets have this one.
Christians do not possess any special powers permitting only Christians to identify other Christians.
That is Christians are only too happy to identify themselves without the need for help from other Christians and that includes all those self identifying Christians that are the majority of the population in our prison system. Are the Christians in the prison system also so smart that they have made the intelligent and inspired choice of a god and a faith as compared to all believers (of other faiths) and non-believes alike?


“Few non-Christians have a clue how to separate those who really are Christian from those who just claim to be ... do you?“

In fact I do, and I know with certainty that your feelings on the subject don’t matter.

[Arkansas Paul]

Our pastor believes the universe is 6-10k years old based on the Bible. These last few weeks we have focused on Genesis and he made a point of ridiculing science to a chorus of “amens” from a few in the congregation.


When I went to church, my pastor was an intelligent design kind of guy.
He didn't mention things from behind the pulpit because it would have caused a mutiny if the older folks in the congregation had know what he really believed about creation.

Ask your pastor how much time elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
That's how mine justified the age of the Earth and such. He said millions of years could have separated the two verses.
We talked at length about the topic while fishing one day. I couldn't believe it.

[T_McD]

When I went to church, my pastor was an intelligent design kind of guy.
He didn't mention things from behind the pulpit because it would have caused a mutiny if the older folks in the congregation had know what he really believed about creation.

Ask your pastor how much time elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
That's how mine justified the age of the Earth and such. He said millions of years could have separated the two verses.
We talked at length about the topic while fishing one day. I couldn't believe it.

This gets argued back and forth constantly and I don’t feel it’s relevant. How does one prove it, and more importantly, what difference does it make in how one is to treat fellow humans?

It’s largely a red herring and a divisive one at that. Athiest or minister and everyone in between, how does origin of life change your day to day interaction with others?

[Arkansas Paul]

It definitely does not change your day to day interactions with others.
It's just an interesting question to ask those people who take the Bible so literally. That is the extent of it for me.

If everything in the Bible were true, how old the world was would be the last thing I was worried about.

[PerpetualStudent]

And unlike the majority of religious people, most atheists would change their minds in the face of evidence.
What evidence would be sufficient? What evidence could there be that could not be explained away?

[Arkansas Paul]

What evidence would be sufficient? What evidence could there be that could not be explained away?

Good question.
I've never seen any at all.
When you ask for it you get answers like, "I feel him in my heart" or "the laughter of a baby" or "the beauty of a rainbow".
That is not evidence.

It would take evidence that could be tested and produce repeatable results.
And we all know, that's not going to happen.

[PerpetualStudent]

The point is that there isn't any because this is not a scientific question. It is philosophy.

If you got your repeatable testable evidence (which would have to be of a nature you cannot even articulate) it would be explained as some other dimension, higher intelligence or aspect of reality that science will, in time, encompass.
"Any science sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic"

If you had a road to damascus epiphany, then you could explain it away as a chemical imbalance, mental weariness/capitulation, or a bad night's sleep.
"there's more of gravy than of grave about you".

Both sides are in a "heads I win tails you lose". Neither side can disprove the other. And when we move past that to "but look what [my side] has done for civilization" it turns into a crapshoot. Because it is not just the theists who use the "no true scotsman" logical fallacy nor can there be a conclusion because as Mark Twain pointed out
"if you laid every economist on earth end to end, they would still not reach a conclusion" and economic measuring is what that argument is.

You can have a manly stance but you cannot lay it as a scientific one. Philosophy is philosophy. No less a mind than Isaac Asimov noted
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.”

[NyFirefighter357]

I am mostly in agreement with you, but then you brought up carbon dating.... it’s junk science. I have the same high standards of proof for science as I do religion. Any claim of certainty regarding origin of life must have an incredible amount of proof along with it. Today’s science relies on consensus too much for my taste. Evolution as a mechanism of change in a species is well documented fact. Evolution as a means for life’s origin is not only speculative but requires that other biological concepts be violated.

“We don’t know” remains the best answer for the origin of life.

Carbon dating is far from junk science. It is most accurate within the last 20,000 yrs. Many factors come into play when using this method including contamination by older material. Scientists have also developed a dating curve which is updated regularly to make this information the most accurate.

Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability

https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

[sureYnot]

Why would creationist care about carbon dating? According to the lore, Adam was created as a full grown man, not a baby. So, why then wouldn't God create the universe "fully grown" as well? "Fully grown" would include aged things (just like Adam's body) such as fossils, oil, diamonds, etc.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

[2wheelDuke]

Goodness! Do you actually think Christians are a majority of criminals? On what AOC metric are you claiming that?

I mean, it is my (easily defendable) position that Christians are the the world's leading defenders of the powerless, not their oppressors! What insider information do you have that the rest of us don't?

I have to agree with him from observation of criminals in my custody.

It's not such a jump really. By the numbers, Christians are the majority in this country. It'd stand to reason that the majority of the criminals are Christian.

You wouldn't believe how many bad people I've arrested that believed that somehow God was on their side even with what they've done. I've had countless people start praying or ask for a bible at some point in my custody before they taken into the back at jail. I usually told them that they should've picked up the bible and started praying before they did the actions that made our paths cross.

[2wheelDuke]

I have heard it put that an agnostic is an atheist with no umm............courage.

I don't know that I agree. I was taught all my life that God exists. Now I have questions. I'm not convinced. I don't know if that is wanting to play both sides of the fence or not. Perhaps it is. I just don't claim to know for sure either way.

I see Agnosticism as similar to Atheism, just a bit more humble or open. One doubts if there's a God, the other is convinced there's none.

[RED BEAR]

I certainly am a believer in the big bang theory.
The question of whether it was orchestrated by God is where the jury is still out for me.

I asked a question in another thread, regarding whether firm believers could reconcile faith and science, if God did indeed speak everything into existence, could it mimic a big bang.
The Catholic church seems to have no problem reconciling the two. Pope Francis said that the big bang does not contradict a divine act of creation. He is also quoted as saying that the evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with him, I'm just using that as an example that a lot of people believe that you can believe in science, and believe that is the way God chose to do things.

I'm sure the Catholic church isn't alone in this. I am also aware that individuals in all religions/denominations have their own thoughts on the subject that may or may not line up with the official view of their particular church's creed.

The big bang takes one heck of a leap of faith. People ask where did god come from well where did the dust and gas come from ? Oh i know its always been here. Yea right. For those who claim there is no god you are free to believe what you like me i think that dust and gas magically appear and are gathered together and are compressed by some mysterious force until it is just a microscopic point in nothingness. ( now we are talking every bit of matter not in our galaxy but all galaxies ) this is blown out into the what emptiness. As it is blown out something makes it start to come together compress into planet's not exactly does that either then magically amino acids combine with other compounds then gets struck by lightning or something else who knows oh lets not forget you have to have an atmosphere where did that come from. Then this single cell evolves into all life everywhere.
There is a reason its called the big bang theory its a theory. Absolutely no proof . But to a lot this is just like gospel its a fact with out proof.
Now if this is what you chose to believe then go for it more power to you. It just amazes me the lengths people go to point out that i am foolish for believing in god. I know what i know and people will never change my mind. I just wish they would stop trying. I don't understand all the people or groups that feel they have to try to tear down anything that they perceive as religious . A cross on a memorials saying under god in the pledge. If you don't like the cross don't look if you don't want to say the pledge then don't . Don't want your kids to say it tell them not to.
Now this is just my opinion and we all know what they are worth but i think this country could use more religion.

[RED BEAR]

Good question.
I've never seen any at all.
When you ask for it you get answers like, "I feel him in my heart" or "the laughter of a baby" or "the beauty of a rainbow".
That is not evidence.

It would take evidence that could be tested and produce repeatable results.
And we all know, that's not going to happen.

I feel him is all the evidence i need. If you don't then i am sorry. But if you are happy in life then i am glad for you. I to have had bad experiences at churches. But these are people not god. I don't attend church on a regular basis but that doesn't change what i believe. It amazes me how many seem to think people who believe in god are hicks and boobs well call me a hick and a boob i don't care.

[RED BEAR]

Carbon dating is far from junk science. It is most accurate within the last 20,000 yrs. Many factors come into play when using this method including contamination by older material. Scientists have also developed a dating curve which is updated regularly to make this information the most accurate.

Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability

https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

It is junk science can you prove it no. They think it works but cannot prove it works. It cannot be tested. How do you know x is 10000 years old and y is 5000 years old to start with to test if it works . I am not saying it doesn't i am saying it cannot be proven and as such its junk.

[UKShootist]

It's not about anyone's belief in God. That has to be up for a possibility, remote or otherwise. That is almost irrelevant. The question that matters is why you believe in that particular God in that particular fashion and why you insist on performing what often seems to believers of a different persuasion to be irrational mental gymnastics to justify your particular interpretation of your particular religion.

[UKShootist]

It is junk science can you prove it no. They think it works but cannot prove it works. It cannot be tested. How do you know x is 10000 years old and y is 5000 years old to start with to test if it works . I am not saying it doesn't i am saying it cannot be proven and as such its junk.

Wow! That's almost the exact argument I use about the Bible! (And the Koran, and quite a few others)

[dtknowles]

The big bang takes one heck of a leap of faith. People ask where did god come from well where did the dust and gas come from ? ……...

You might want to study the Big Bang Theory a little more. The theory is that the universe came from nothing. The absolute nothingness got unstable and at a single point that nothing shattered into particles of matter and anti-matter and then with the presence of matter and change, space and time and gravity came into being along with the matter and anti-matter. That does not mean that God did not exist in that nothingness and maybe God caused the instability that led to the Big Bang. The phrase let there be light, harks of the Big Bang. All the dust and gas you are talking about came from that original singularity at the origin of the universe. God might not have created the singularity God might be the singularity.

Tim

[Wag]

As far as your quote of me:

I am willing to discuss nearly anything, and am definitely ok being wrong. My tone was in response to the tone given by 1hole. If he is going to put himself on a religious high horse, he should display at least cursory knowledge of his religion.

No argument here. Discussion on this subject is never much more than an irritation because people are unwilling to be honest during the course of the discussion. It's one reason why I don't generally jump in on these discussions.

--Wag--

[T_McD]

Carbon dating is far from junk science. It is most accurate within the last 20,000 yrs. Many factors come into play when using this method including contamination by older material. Scientists have also developed a dating curve which is updated regularly to make this information the most accurate.

Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Errors_and_reliability

https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

Carbon dating lacks a solid baseline. And even if one can account for atmospheric variation causing errors (we can’t), the dating could only be accurate to as far back as the baseline. Measurements cannot be more accurate than the tool used to measure.

I understand the concepts behind carbon dating, but historical records remain the most reliable method.

[RED BEAR]

You might want to study the Big Bang Theory a little more. The theory is that the universe came from nothing. The absolute nothingness got unstable and at a single point that nothing shattered into particles of matter and anti-matter and then with the presence of matter and change, space and time and gravity came into being along with the matter and anti-matter. That does not mean that God did not exist in that nothingness and maybe God caused the instability that led to the Big Bang. The phrase let there be light, harks of the Big Bang. All the dust and gas you are talking about came from that original singularity at the origin of the universe. God might not have created the singularity God might be the singularity.

Tim

Boy that sounds crazier than what i said it all started from nothing. And nothing became unstable and shatered into matter and anti matter. Now thats out there. And exactly how would you prove that? Sounds a bit sceptical to me. Now exactly where did the matter and anti matter come from oh wait i got it from nothing. You do realize that anti matter is a hypnotist not a fact. The scientists are using the hadron collider to try and prove there existence but it ain't been proven yet. In theory both matter and antimatter have mass and weight so exactly how did that come from nothing. Now why did the matter change? And exactly how did space time and gravity come into being ? Because matter and antimatter came from nothing and since they did they had to change and shizam you get space time and gravity oook. You can't see how this sounds nuts. My eye doctor is a physicist who's main accomplishment is a paper he submitted to nasa that proves light has weight. We have some pretty good discussions about these type things even he can't say that the big bang can be proven.

[RED BEAR]

My biggest point is say what you will neither can be proven so exactly why is one irrational and the other not.

[UKShootist]

My biggest point is say what you will neither can be proven so exactly why is one irrational and the other not.

I'm not sure I can answer that question entirely, but here's the difference. If a scientific theory that I think is correct is proven to be wrong then I will be able to digest and understand, hopefully, the new theory. Neither will I be damaged by the idea that I was originally wrong because I will now know a little more about the universe I inhabit. If OTOH I believe something as matter of religious faith I cannot accept a change to my religious faith without destroying my religious faith which then destroys all of my life values and may even make me feel and look foolish because faith cannot be held on the basis of proof but must actually exist without proof.

If there was proof it would be science and therefore open to contradiction by research and science. Faith and science are two opposites. You can damage my science by better science and my world will not fall apart because of it. Damage my faith and my world may well fall apart. For the faithful it is easier to believe with certainty (i.e. faith) than to be uncertain. Faith is a crutch to lean upon in the face of ignorance that must be preserved for fear of knowledge. Ironic that eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge caused so much trouble (if you believe that). What on earth is wrong and evil about knowledge? Would you raise a child and deny it knowledge (OK, quite a few would, and do. Don't make it right)

I find it interesting that nobody has made any effort to clarify the differences between science and faith from the religious side of the discussion.

[UKShootist]

Radiocarbon Dating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

An argument can be made here that the above linked article is not proof. But then, what is? There is a lot of factual detail and logic in that article. To me it carries more weight that any book of the Bible, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Hindu scriptures, or Old Possums Book of Practical Cats, or the Just So stories, or Aesop's Fables. All of those books end up being used as 'proof' because 'It says so in this book'.

What of the the laws of thermodynamics? Can you prove them? All of them? Neither can I completely but I probably could if I took my time and did the maths. It would be foolish though to take some of the tales from the Bible and give them the same credibility, or lack thereof as the laws of thermodynamics. Whether I believe in those laws or not I can go outside, start my car, and see them working.

What about short wave radio? Are you really telling me that you can speak into this microphone and the load pf plastic and wires will send invisible waves of something or other through the air to bounce off an invisible 'layer' of something or other before perhaps hundreds of people living miles apart can hear you speaking through a similar bundle of plastic and wires all at the same time and before the bloke standing 50 yards away does? Oh, come one now. Face it, it must just be magic.

But, again, here's the thing. Study long enough and you can prove by science and practice that all that about the radio is true. And If it is discovered that, for instance, the Heaviside Layer doesn't exist but that it is caused by some other phenomenon, then that new phenomenon will be studied, proved, understood, and once again, science will let us know little more about the universe.

[RED BEAR]

You believe these theories because you think it sounds logical to you but the fact remains you me or no one can now or ever prove them. Science has a tendency when something doesn't work like they think it should they invent something things in the universe don't work the way they are supposed to so lets invent something dark matter .does it exist who knows i personally don't think so but thats me. I think what i believe is just as valid as what you believe. I don't believe it because a book tells me to i believe because this is what i feel to be true. I have said on numerous occasions that people who do not believe as i do are free to believe what they want i just can't figure out why i am not afforded the same courtesy. But i am used to it.
I am not trying to be smart i would really like to know why is it so important for those who do not believe in god to convince those who do that they are wrong.

[PerpetualStudent]

If there was proof it would be science. And that would be where it ceases to be science and instead becomes philosophy. Many, if not most, hardcore atheists make this argument. And it gets buttressed because they actually believe in future science, rather than science right now, so if any of the planks they fight and die for now can be removed and they're still believers in "science". They've insulated themselves against evidence just as well as the believers of any faith.

To be clear, I'm not against science. Nor philosophy. I am against philosophy masquerading as science. You can prefer, you can choose, an atheistic view. But it is not a "scientific" view.

[1hole]

I'm a believer who totally accepts science. What I do not trust is/are scientists pushing pet concepts; anyone wanting to see a dogmatic "religion" at work need look no further than such scientists.

The Big Bang has been proven wrong but, given that it's part of the scientist's religion, they choose to ignore that it's wrong. IF it were true, the combined gravitational pull of universal creation would be slowly pulling everything back to its starting point; that isn't happening, the rate of universal expansion is accellerating.

IF the Big Bang were true everything would be radiating away from the Bang's start point in more or less straight lines; there are whole galaxies moving in unexplainable angles to most of creation. Either there were multiple Big Bangs or .... God made it the way he wanted it!

Finally, for life to exist, the third law of thermodynamics would have to be stood on its head! I'm gullible but not gullible enough to put my faith in scientists and believe any of their creation explanations!

[Arkansas Paul]

The big bang takes one heck of a leap of faith.


It doesn't take nearly as much faith as thinking an invisible man in the sky did it, for which there has never been one iota of evidence for, other than a thousands of years old book that was written by sheep herders who didn't know where the sun went at night.
Talk about faith......


There is a reason its called the big bang theory its a theory. Absolutely no proof.

As for the first comment, this is something that is often said by science deniers to kind of automatically tell themselves that it is bogus and immediately stop thinking.
A theory in science is not the same as the non-scientific version of the word.
In science, a theory is not just an idea someone pulled from their derriere. It is a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation.
Gravity is a theory. You're not floating off the earth. Because even though it is a theory, we know full well it exerts a downward force of 9.8 m/s squared on our planet.

As for the 2nd part that there is no proof. I'm not even going to attempt to explain the expanding universe or cosmic background radiation that was recently discovered that scientists believe are remnants of the explosion. I'm not going to attempt to because, for one I'm not a scientist and would do an inadequate job of explaining such things. Secondly, even if I were the reincarnation of Stephen Hawking I still wouldn't in this situation.
I'm not going to because it would do no good whatsoever.
Religious people don't require evidence for their beliefs because it is not relevant. The definition of faith is belief without evidence.

My father is very religious. He was a preacher my entire life.
He is also a wonderful person and I have seen him give selflessly to strangers.
He is also not an idiot. He's a pretty smart guy.
By the same token, if he read somewhere in the bible that 2+2 equaled 5, he wouldn't question it. He would question mathematics.
And that is why I won't try to prove my point any more.



It just amazes me the lengths people go to point out that i am foolish for believing in god.

I don't think you're foolish at all.
I know some non-believers come across that way and I apologize for that.
There are jerks in every group of people.
I don't think you're foolish because I was a believer until about 30 years old. Then I decided to think for myself and question everything.


Now this is just my opinion and we all know what they are worth but i think this country could use more religion.

All religion?
Or just yours?
Could it use more Muslims?
More Hindus?
More Scientologists?

[T_McD]

I would like to thank everyone for a reasonably civil discussion. I think we are to the point now where we agree to disagree. The last several posts are mostly in agreement despite differences of opinion.

My takeaway: don’t make science your religion or religion your science and I think we can get along.

[dtknowles]

Boy that sounds crazier than what i said it all started from nothing. And nothing became unstable and shatered into matter and anti matter. Now thats out there. And exactly how would you prove that? Sounds a bit sceptical to me. Now exactly where did the matter and anti matter come from oh wait i got it from nothing. You do realize that anti matter is a hypnotist not a fact. The scientists are using the hadron collider to try and prove there existence but it ain't been proven yet. In theory both matter and antimatter have mass and weight so exactly how did that come from nothing. Now why did the matter change? And exactly how did space time and gravity come into being ? Because matter and antimatter came from nothing and since they did they had to change and shizam you get space time and gravity oook. You can't see how this sounds nuts. My eye doctor is a physicist who's main accomplishment is a paper he submitted to nasa that proves light has weight. We have some pretty good discussions about these type things even he can't say that the big bang can be proven.

Yes, it is a Theory that would be very hard to prove. Asking me to explain the Big Bang Theory in more detail is too much for this forum. I suggested you study the topic in more detail if you want to discuss it and that discussion probably belongs on a Physics or Cosmology forum.

If you want to study the Big Bang Theory, this is a good place to start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Tim

[dtknowles]

……….... You do realize that anti matter is a hypnotist not a fact. The scientists are using the hadron collider to try and prove there existence but it ain't been proven yet. In theory both matter and antimatter have mass and weight so exactly how did that come from nothing. Now why did the matter change? And exactly how did space time and gravity come into being ?. .

Without light and matter all you have is a void, God.

No space, no time, no gravity, just God.

God said let there be light and now you have a Universe. With Light you now have space, time and gravity. With nothing and nothing changing you have nothing to mark time or space, it is a spaceless, timeless void. When God created light he created more than light, the light came from reaction, maybe matter, anti-matter reactions.

Anti-matter is real, no joke. Why did you think it was just a hypothesis?

Minuscule numbers of antiparticles are generated daily at particle accelerators – total production has been only a few nanograms[1] – and in natural processes like cosmic ray collisions and some types of radioactive decay, but only a tiny fraction of these have successfully been bound together in experiments to form anti-atoms."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Tim

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

An atheist simply believes in one less god than you.

You missed the point of the original post. I don't care what you "believe" in or don't believe in. I'm more interested in what you worship. If you don't believe in a god, do you worship money? fame? power? What is the most important thing in your life? What do you make great sacrifices for?

[UKShootist]

You missed the point of the original post. I don't care what you "believe" in or don't believe in. I'm more interested in what you worship. If you don't believe in a god, do you worship money? fame? power? What is the most important thing in your life? What do you make great sacrifices for?

An interesting post, as well as a useful reminder of the OP.

Why do you assume the need to worship? Worship is a concept I am extremely uncomfortable with. The dictionary definition is stated thus: "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity." but the word carries so much more by way of implication that that dry definition.

Personally, I do not worship anything or anyone. I find the very thought of doing so an anathema. The nearest I get to that might arguably be my commitment to seeking the truth in anything, from the question of religion to the best way of opening a tin of beans. One particular truth I believe I have discovered is that if a man writes a book and then says that what he has written must be true because it says so in that book and the only proof of it that is needed is that it is written in that book defies adequate description of the ridiculous nature of such a proof.No offence is intended towards those people who's blind faith leads them down that path, but to me and many like me, such a self defining 'proof' cannot possibly make any sense at all.

That particular truth does not, IMO, automatically discard every single word in that book, but it does leave the content open to challenge.

I believe that 'faith' is a barrier to finding the truth. A person's faith is an inevitable tool for flying in the face of demonstrable evidence. Doubt is the real tool for learning. The first thing a scientist will do upon making a discovery is to make every possible effort to disprove it. That is the very last thing a person of faith will do because to do so would challenge the very essence of his being.

[UKShootist]

I feel I might add something to the post above. In respect of people who follow a religion I see two basic types. One is the person who accepts the broad tenets of his religion while allowing that there might be holes in their holy book. They are guided by the principles of that religion, in the case of Christianity this is mostly the nice bits. I have a good friend who I would describe as a devoted follower of the teachings of Jesus and I regard him as a good man.

The second type are the Bible lawyers. They will justify just about anything by quoting the Bible in the manner of a law book. I consider that sort of believer as one who uses his religion to avoid any responsibility for his actions. They view their decisions as justified because, yes, you've guessed it, it says so in this book. If the decision in question appears a pretty horrible one, well, it's noting to do with them because it's what God wants. I will reserve comment upon such people.

For clarity, I have referred to the Bible for convenience and because this board is mostly occupied by people who consider themselves Christians. Other holy books are available. Very Many other holy books. What I have said applies to them and their followers all.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Why do you assume the need to worship? Worship is a concept I am extremely uncomfortable with. The dictionary definition is stated thus: "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity." but the word carries so much more by way of implication that that dry definition.

Yes. I know one common use of the term "worship" is the idea of someone groveling on their knees before a statue or god. But another common use of the term is when someone makes an object the center of their life's mission - such as when we say, "he worships money".

For the purposes of this thread - worship is to have the latter meaning.

There is a need to worship. Humans have a drive to have something in their life that has a higher meaning. Some cause, or some thing that we see as greater than ourselves. Otherwise if a person lives their life as if there is nothing else greater than themselves . . . well we tend to thing of those people as making a mess of their lives.


The nearest I get to that might arguably be my commitment to seeking the truth in anything, from the question of religion to the best way of opening a tin of beans.

Yep - you nailed it! You said truth, another person said virtue.

[UKShootist]

I'm a believer who totally accepts science.

Okay.


Finally, for life to exist, the third law of thermodynamics would have to be stood on its head! I'm gullible but not gullible enough to put my faith in scientists and believe any of their creation explanations!

That is a very bold statement. That being the case I feel sure you can explain it so please share that explanation.


The Third Law of Thermodynamics

The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance (perfect order) at absolute zero temperature is zero. This statement holds true if the perfect crystal has only one state with minimum energy.

[1hole]

That [third law of thermodynamics] is a very bold statement. That being the case I feel sure you can explain it so please share that explanation.

Bold? Or reasonable?

Okay, you ask and I can explain but I'm quite sure you already know exactly what I was saying.

In application, down where the real rubber actually hits the road, that 3rd law means, "all things move from order to disorder" and that means all things fall apart as they age. That's pure science, I believe it and it's obviously true even to a casual observer. But ....

"Scientists" who start from a position that, "There is no God so what we see absolutely has to have occurred by old things accidently falling into bigger and better things", i.e., things must have moved from simple forms to complex forms, from disorganized particles to highly organized, from dead stones to life systems .... and believing that my friend requires turning the Third Law of Thermodynamics on its head.

So, at its core, non-believing scientists MUST start from the rejection of God, otherwise their whole flimsy house of theoretical cards collapses in dust. Truth is, a LOT of very intelligent scientists ARE confirmed Christians but narrow minded and vicious peer group professional needs require them to be quite about it!

But, again, I'm certain you already knew all that so what's your point?

[UKShootist]

Bold? Or reasonable?

Okay, you ask and I can explain but I'm quite sure you already know exactly what I was saying.

In application, down where the real rubber actually hits the road, that 3rd law means, "all things move from order to disorder" and that means all things fall apart as they age. That's pure science, I believe it and it's obviously true even to a casual observer. But ....

"Scientists" who start from a position that, "There is no God so what we see absolutely has to have occurred by old things accidently falling into bigger and better things", i.e., things must have moved from simple forms to complex forms, from disorganized particles to highly organized, from dead stones to life systems .... and believing that my friend requires turning the Third Law of Thermodynamics on its head.

So, at its core, non-believing scientists MUST start from the rejection of God, otherwise their whole flimsy house of theoretical cards collapses in dust. Truth is, a LOT of very intelligent scientists ARE confirmed Christians but narrow minded and vicious peer group professional needs require them to be quite about it!

But, again, I'm certain you already knew all that so what's your point?

Thank you for replying. You have certainly explained a lot, more than you might think.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

One particular truth I believe I have discovered is that if a man writes a book and then says that what he has written must be true because it says so in that book and the only proof of it that is needed is that it is written in that book defies adequate description of the ridiculous nature of such a proof.

I am truly sorry that you encounter such fallacious logic amongst Christians. It goes against everything we've been taught about truth in our Western Civilization. When determining the truth of a matter we are taught that you consider the matter from many perspectives and angles. Such that, if you are trying to determine if the Bible is true, then you do NOT simply read the Bible! In Western culture we never apply such foolish logic to anything else.

However, there is another fallacy that some atheists engage in - a double standard fallacy. They will accept the veracity of the existence of Alexander The Great, but go to great lengths to deny Christ. The historical evidence for ATG is really thin compared to that of Christ, yet I know of no sane person who denies the existence of ATG.

Do people even realize that there is a wealth of written material that comes from very, very early in the Church's history? If you studied that evidence, where do you suppose it might lead you?

[Arkansas Paul]

However, there is another fallacy that some atheists engage in - a double standard fallacy. They will accept the veracity of the existence of Alexander The Great, but go to great lengths to deny Christ. The historical evidence for ATG is really thin compared to that of Christ, yet I know of no sane person who denies the existence of ATG.


If everyone claimed that Alexander the Great was the son of God, born of a virgin, healed cripples, opened blind eyes, cured leprosy, fed 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish (and had leftovers), turned water into wine, walked on water, raised the dead (3 times), put people's severed ears back on their heads, and was killed only to rise from the grave, trust me, sane people would have a doubt or two.

I don't doubt that Christ possibly existed.
It's the other stuff that gives me a slight pause.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

If everyone claimed that Alexander the Great was the son of God, born of a virgin, healed cripples, opened blind eyes, cured leprosy, fed 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish (and had leftovers), turned water into wine, walked on water, raised the dead (3 times), put people's severed ears back on their heads, and was killed only to rise from the grave, trust me, sane people would have a doubt or two.

I don't doubt that Christ possibly existed.
It's the other stuff that gives me a slight pause.

Right. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But the evidence for Christ is mountainous (hint: not just the Bible) compared to ATG.

There are two types of truth seekers. Those who find a nugget of truth and promptly set it aside the moment they realize it means they need to change the way they are living. And there are those who hang on to the truth and change their lives accordingly.

[sureYnot]

Can anyone explain the "science" behind Ouija board?
The inability of science to fully explain a thing does not necessarily make that thing a fairy tale.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

[UKShootist]

Can anyone explain the "science" behind Ouija board?


Easy. There is none.

[sureYnot]

Easy. There is none.Exactly

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

[Arkansas Paul]

The inability of science to fully explain a thing does not necessarily make that thing a fairy tale.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


That is accurate.
Just because science doesn't understand something yet, doesn't make it a fairy tale. I gladly concede that.
That's the point of science is to test and see if we can fully explain something. If we knew everything, there would be no need for science.

I would add that the fact that something is written in an ancient book, does not make that thing a reality.

[sureYnot]

I would add that the fact that something is written in an ancient book, does not make that thing a reality.

Naturally. I could write a book right now and it wouldn't magically become true after a couple thousand years.

I've read the book of every major religion and I don't see why any of them has to be in conflict with what science says is true.
In a way, Genesis actually supports the big bang theory/evolution. It claims God as the driving force but the order of creation pretty much follows the evolutionary chain indicated by science.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

That's the point of science is to test and see if we can fully explain something. If we knew everything, there would be no need for science.

But is there some aspect of truth for which science is not an adequate tool? Not just inadequate at the moment, but just not the right tool to begin with?

[Arkansas Paul]

But is there some aspect of truth for which science is not an adequate tool? Not just inadequate at the moment, but just not the right tool to begin with?


I don't think so, but obviously can't prove that.
Just because we don't understand something right now, doesn't mean that it is unknowable. It just means we may not have the capability to test it and figure it out at this moment.

[UKShootist]

This thread has been a most interesting discussion to follow. I can understand that people might believe there is a God, although if there is I personally would question his character. I can understand that people might believe that Jesus, who I'm pretty confident did exist, has a closer than ordinary relationship with God, perhaps might even be God. Why not? What I cannot understand are the Bible lawyers who insist that every word is the literal truth. To me, and I sincerely do not mean to offend, much, possibly most, of the Old Testament are fairy tales once told around the campfire at night to keep the ghosts away at best, and at worst are utter demonstrable puerile nonsense.

The mental gymnastics such Bible lawyers perform to demonstrate their 'faith' are astounding, especially when it comes to demonstrating their total failure to understand basic science and scientific principles, indeed their total determination to deliberately misunderstand.

It doesn't bother me too much that such people seem to need to believe such things until they enter into a debate and use their ignorance as if it is proof. To me, it insults my intelligence, (N.B. if they are to be believed, a God given intelligence). Tell a fake medium that they are fake and they will be most offended. Tell a person suffering from schizophrenia that they voices they hear are not God telling them what to do but are the result of a malfunctioning mind and they will be equally annoyed.

The biggest mystery of all, to me at least, is why (according to the Bible lawyers) their benevolent, loving, and forgiving God who understands everything will judge a man who has lead a good life full of merit but who has failed to be convinced that Jesus is his saviour, whether through science, a poor teacher, or merely being a member of another faith from birth, worthy of an eternity, (a trillion trillion years multiplied a trillion times is only a starter to eternity,) suffering the fires and tortures of hell. Really? This God some people want to worship? I would rather believe there is no God than such a God. And if it is the exact truth then I am bound to hell, where I believe I will at least find better company.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

I don't think so, but obviously can't prove that.
Just because we don't understand something right now, doesn't mean that it is unknowable. It just means we may not have the capability to test it and figure it out at this moment.

No. I do not mean that some things are unknowable, period. I am asking whether you believe that all knowledge comes through science?

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Bible lawyers.

I hear ya. We call 'em Biblethumpers and they can be obnoxious. But if 1 billion Christians are not Bible lawyers, why do you dismiss Christianity based on the portion that are Bible lawyers? Maybe the Bible lawyer version of Christianity is false, and the true version still exists?

OT as fairy tales.
As for the OT being merely a collection of fairy tales: how do you account for the existence of the Jewish people today? There might be more to those fairy tales when a people can retain their national identity in spite of being enslaved numerous times. That is unique through history.

God as cruel.

You claim you don't believe in a God who permits suffering, but then you claim the nearest thing you come to worshipping would be the truth. The truth isn't exactly all nicey-nice. So why do you worship truth? (Or come close to worshipping)

[Arkansas Paul]

No. I do not mean that some things are unknowable, period. I am asking whether you believe that all knowledge comes through science?


Not in a formal sense.
Not all knowledge comes from men in white coats in labs testing a hypothesis.
For example, some knowledge comes through simple observation.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Not in a formal sense.
Not all knowledge comes from men in white coats in labs testing a hypothesis.
For example, some knowledge comes through simple observation.

And history?
And philosophy?

[Arkansas Paul]

And history?
And philosophy?

No, I do not believe that knowledge comes through history and philosophy.
History may contain some knowledge, but knowledge does not come through it.
History is written by the victors, and not everything contained in historical writings are true. Many things are written to make the victors look like the good guys. Even our own American History is no different.
Thus, historical writings must be looked at critically before simply believing whatever you read.

Philosophy can help us look at something logically to help us to identify truth and therefore gain knowledge, but is not a source of it within itself.

[UKShootist]

For example, some knowledge comes through simple observation.

Such as "The Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it." sort of simple observation? :bigsmyl2:

[Arkansas Paul]

Such as "The Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it." sort of simple observation? :bigsmyl2:

More like, "Fire is hot because I touched it and know." lol

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Ugh. So on the one extreme, we have Bible Lawyers who peddle Sola Scriptura. And on the other extreme we have Science lawyers who peddle Sola Sciencia.

[UKShootist]

Bible lawyers.

I hear ya. We call 'em Biblethumpers and they can be obnoxious. But if 1 billion Christians are not Bible lawyers, why do you dismiss Christianity based on the portion that are Bible lawyers? Maybe the Bible lawyer version of Christianity is false, and the true version still exists?

Understood and to some extent agreed with on the last sentence. I don't dismiss Christianity, I merely doubt the details. There may well be a 'true version' but where? All of them think theirs is the true version. All I can do is make the best use of the brain either God or natural selection gave me.


OT as fairy tales.
As for the OT being merely a collection of fairy tales: how do you account for the existence of the Jewish people today? There might be more to those fairy tales when a people can retain their national identity in spite of being enslaved numerous times. That is unique through history.

The Jewish people merely got a head start. Norse, Greek, and Roman mythology all had a fairly good run but were comparatively easy to dismiss. Some tales are better than others and easier to follow. Nothing encourages the spread of a religion so much as a good bit of persecution.


God as cruel.

You claim you don't believe in a God who permits suffering, but then you claim the nearest thing you come to worshipping would be the truth. The truth isn't exactly all nicey-nice. So why do you worship truth? (Or come close to worshipping)

That paragraphs contains a few assumptions that are inaccurate. I doubt the existence of a God but who knows? I can easily understand a God who permits suffering. It's a little like without the night there would be no recognition of the day (only a little). My nearest thing to worshiping is not the same as worshiping. Anyone who does not seek the truth throughout life, even if that truth turns out to prove their closely held beliefs to be false, is a fool. I seek to acknowledge the truth by doing my best to find it. If that truth is unpleasant then so be it. If I am proved wrong, so be it. None of which guarantees the truth will be found. Nice is irrelevant. Try this as a probably not very good example. Consider people going for a medical test that may reveal their fate is a horrible disease and a lingering painful death. Some of those people will steadfastly decline being informed of the test results, others will insist on hearing bad news at once. I'm the 'bad news at one' type.

When you feel you have discovered a truth the first thing to be done is to challenge it to the limits of your ability and to continue doing so. This is called 'science' unless it is to do with matters of faith, in which case it is called heresy.

[PerpetualStudent]

When you feel you have discovered a truth the first thing to be done is to challenge it to the limits of your ability and to continue doing so. This is called 'science' unless it is to do with matters of faith, in which case it is called heresy.Or history. Or philosophy. You've expanded the definition of science too far. And setting and debating definitions is not science but rather philosophy.

This is the failure of scientism. And is part of why fundamentalists and the new atheists fight so hard: they are far closer to each other than they realize. They have both seized onto one thing as true and try to hang an entire worldview on that one pin.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Or history. Or philosophy. You've expanded the definition of science too far. And setting and debating definitions is not science but rather philosophy.

Well put.


That paragraphs contains a few assumptions that are inaccurate. I doubt the existence of a God but who knows? I can easily understand a God who permits suffering. It's a little like without the night there would be no recognition of the day (only a little). My nearest thing to worshiping is not the same as worshiping. Anyone who does not seek the truth throughout life, even if that truth turns out to prove their closely held beliefs to be false, is a fool. I seek to acknowledge the truth by doing my best to find it. If that truth is unpleasant then so be it. If I am proved wrong, so be it. None of which guarantees the truth will be found. Nice is irrelevant. Try this as a probably not very good example. Consider people going for a medical test that may reveal their fate is a horrible disease and a lingering painful death. Some of those people will steadfastly decline being informed of the test results, others will insist on hearing bad news at once. I'm the 'bad news at one' type.

What you describe here is exactly how I defined the term "worship" for the purposes of this thread. It appears accurate that you worship truth. Carry on my friend, and may we meet in the end.


When you feel you have discovered a truth the first thing to be done is to challenge it to the limits of your ability and to continue doing so. This is called 'science' unless it is to do with matters of faith, in which case it is called heresy.

Again, here you ascribe something that may be held by a portion of Christians to all Christianity. That is not an accurate definition of heresy at all. Heresy is presenting a false version of the faith as if it were the true faith. It is truly unfortunate that you've encountered so much of this. For example, the very notion that the Bible stands alone as its own authority and to prove that it is infallible you just need to read it - is a heresy. And heresies are bad because they lead people away from the truth, which is God.

I'll offer a challenge - feel free to ask any challenging questions and my challenge will be to answer without getting obnoxious. (Which may be a big challenge for me because my sense of humor can be a bit caustic).

[T_McD]

I'll offer a challenge - feel free to ask any challenging questions and my challenge will be to answer without getting obnoxious. (Which may be a big challenge for me because my sense of humor can be a bit caustic).

I realize the offer was not directed at me but I’m asking anyway:

What observable evidence makes you believe in any god, and why do you believe in your God?

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

What observable evidence makes you believe in any god, and why do you believe in your God?

You would have to go for the jugular right away wouldn't you?;)

I will get to this later - just don't want to give the impression I'm ignoring this.

[T_McD]

Good deal. A quick answer to my question would likely be inadequate, given the awkwardness of communication via internet forum. To me this thread is “deep” theological discussion.

[1hole]

Good deal. A quick answer to my question would likely be inadequate, given the awkwardness of communication via internet forum. To me this thread is “deep” theological discussion.

Actually, and with due respect, the questions of this thread are those of a secular philosopher, not those of a theologian. Theology is, by definition, a study of God's word, i.e. the Bible, not man's hypothetical questions of His existence.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

what/who do you worship? seems pretty theological to me. It is commonly understood that the object of one's worship is a god (with a small g).

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

To answer the question on observable evidence.

Evidence for the existence of god is a bit like tracking a wild beast. You see the marks left behind, but you can't see the proof. To the tracker it can be a bit of splash mud, bent leaves, or a lack of dew on the grass. The city-slicker looks at the same evidence and is not convinced that this scant evidence can only be explained by the passage of our quarry.

So I am conceding that a reasonable and intelligent man could see the evidence and dismiss it as the result of something else.

The evidence is the existence of order in the universe. The set of natural laws are so intricate and elegant that it strains imagination. The amount of wisdom in the universe is so vast that Socrates correctly noted that the wiser a man becomes he sees more accutely how little he knows.

The existence of sacrificial love. If you contemplate how cold and disinterested the universe is but at the same time contemplate your parent's love. To exist in a cold world where your life doesn't mean squat in the grand scheme of things, but also matter immensely to someone else.

And I will mention also the hair raising stories of demonic possession. I don't like to read much of that stuff, but it seems that the witnesses are credible. It isn't exactly evidence that there is a god, but evidence that there is a supernatural.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Now for why I believe in my God.

I will start with an analogy to explain how I understand the relationship between faith and belief. Belief is just the intellectual assent to something as probably true. Faith is placing a bet on that belief. I may know lots of people who have flown, I may have seen planes fly with my own eyes, I may even understand the physics behind flight, so it is easy to say I believe that particular airplane can fly. But I can't say I have faith in its ability to fly until I board the plane. After the plane lands at the destination, and I walk off unharmed, I can then say I know the plane can fly.

So I first began an intellectual inquiry. I decided long ago, on sound advice, that to compare belief systems I would not have a default belief system. I would scrutinize them all. In other words I wasn't going to examine 9 belief systems, then having found disatisfaction with all 9 conclude that I must belong in the 10th belief system without subjecting that one to scrutiny.

I am sure most who read my posts have already noticed that my intelligence is limited. I accepted that handicap. So I knew going into the venture that the truth was going to exceed my comprehension - there were going to be aspects that didn't make sense to me. In fact if one system made total sense to me it was likely a sign it was a false belief system.

I began with the notion that "you can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." So the truth probably was in a religion that has been around for millennia and had lots of believers. That quickly ruled out a lot of religions, Jehovas, Mormons, and the various other small and new creeds.

So that left me with a few big ones. I grew up Catholic, and from the legends that I heard from protestants about Catholicism I already was suspicious of much of the protestant world. I knew Catholics didn't worship Mary because I was taught as a Catholic not to worship Mary for instance.

Islam was pretty easy to rule out.

And I began to focus on Catholicism, and started to grill a priest at my university. I told him up front that if faith meant checking my intellect at the door, I was out. I asked him all the questions: how do we know there is a god, how do we know the bible isn't just made up, how do we know Catholicism is the right version of Christianity etc.

To my surprise he had rational and reasonable answers. For example: after the last Apostles died that was the end of public revelation. What that means is that we are not obliged to heed the dreams or visions of another person. The only such vision that would be accepted would be Saint Paul's because it happened at the time when he could explain it in detail to the 12 Apostles and they could verify, "yep, that sounds like the Jesus we knew". After that, anyone who tells you that they had a vision of Jesus who said you need to pay them cash - well Catholics are not bound by that. However, the church does automatically dismiss visions as false, if you personally have a vision, and it does not go contrary to church teaching (I.e. the vision does not instruct you to shoot up a school) you personally may be bound to heed it.

The more I dug into it the more I found satisfaction. But after I graduated I was exposed to other priests and Catholic authors. I began to notice that two priests could have wildly different views on something that was supposedly a moral evil. That really put a strain on me. But as I began digging into this I slowly realized that the Curch provides a means to sort this confusion out. You can go up the hierarchical ladder, and you can also go back in time. So if two priests had a different opinion on a matter you could check to see which one agreed with the bishop or pope to get the "official" Catholic stance. I thought that was cool because it wasn't wishy-washy. There was an official Catholic stance on many things (not all things) and I could decide to take it or leave it.

Thats a glimpse into the intellectual inquiry part of the analogy. I could see people who flew in that plane, I could investigate its inner workings and it seemed reasonable that it could fly. I had to get in and test my faith.

I will have to pause for now...

[T_McD]

The evidence is the existence of order in the universe. The set of natural laws are so intricate and elegant that it strains imagination. The amount of wisdom in the universe is so vast that Socrates correctly noted that the wiser a man becomes he sees more accutely how little he knows.



I can agree with this. It seems arrogant and egotistical to believe I am the pinnacle of intelligence in the Universe.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

I don't think so.
I think we use the word "narcissist" a little too loosely.

Narcissism is more than just caring only about yourself.

To be considered a narcissist, one must exhibit at least 5 of the following traits (this is from the DSM).

(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

(4) requires excessive admiration

(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Simply caring more about your family than the family across the street isn't narcissism.
I guess you could call it selfish and be somewhat accurate, but I think most of us fall into that category to some degree.

What Bigslug stated wouldn't rise to a diagnosis of narcissism - which is probably why I called it the seed of narcissism. I agree with your last statement - it is not narcissism to take care of your own family above strangers. But that isn't the way I understood Bigslug's post. He said,

My own freedom & happiness, which depends on / extends to the well being of a small handful of people.

The "which depends on/extends to" phrasing I understood to mean that because his freedom & happiness depends on the well being of some other people he will put their freedom & happiness up there - but only so long as his happiness depends on them.

[EDG]

This is an opinion since it is not backed up by facts.....


Such as "The Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it." sort of simple observation? :bigsmyl2:

[Blackwater]

You know, I haven't read the entire thread, but I went back and re-read the original post, and the question was about what or who we worship? And to that, I'd have to comment that many worship what other people have, and seek to have the same or better. And many worship their own looks, or their friends. In actual fact and practice, we WORSHIP whatever we pay the most attention to and whatever concerns us most consistently. And many fail to understand this. We think of worship as ONLY being what we do in church, but there are many forms of worship. A close reading of scripture will reveal and support this. I just can't think of a verse offhand at the moment to quote here, but maybe someone here can.

Not trying to be picky or critical, just to expand and clarify the nature of the original question.

[EDG]

You are really determined to declare that everyone worships.
Only a practicing worshiper would be so obsessed as to ascribe worship to everyone else.
I know no one that worships anything unless worshiping a can of beer counts.
And PS I don't drink - unlike a lot of Christians...
The people I know get up and go to work, eat, sleep, fish, hunt, mow the grass and do all the things in their life without significant contemplation. In fact it appears the most deranged among the population are those that spend an inordinate amount of time contemplating the color of their skin.
I don't really think your readings and interpretation of scripture mean a thing. Just because you have wrapped your life around the Bible does not mean the rest of us have. It is typical of your kind to assume that your worshipers view of the world applies to how everyone should think - but it doesn't.


You know, I haven't read the entire thread, but I went back and re-read the original post, and the question was about what or who we worship? And to that, I'd have to comment that many worship what other people have, and seek to have the same or better. And many worship their own looks, or their friends. In actual fact and practice, we WORSHIP whatever we pay the most attention to and whatever concerns us most consistently. And many fail to understand this. We think of worship as ONLY being what we do in church, but there are many forms of worship. A close reading of scripture will reveal and support this. I just can't think of a verse offhand at the moment to quote here, but maybe someone here can.

Not trying to be picky or critical, just to expand and clarify the nature of the original question.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

You know, I haven't read the entire thread, but I went back and re-read the original post, and the question was about what or who we worship? And to that, I'd have to comment that many worship what other people have, and seek to have the same or better. And many worship their own looks, or their friends. In actual fact and practice, we WORSHIP whatever we pay the most attention to and whatever concerns us most consistently. And many fail to understand this. We think of worship as ONLY being what we do in church, but there are many forms of worship. A close reading of scripture will reveal and support this. I just can't think of a verse offhand at the moment to quote here, but maybe someone here can.

Not trying to be picky or critical, just to expand and clarify the nature of the original question.

Yes. You understood the nature of the question very well and expressed it better than I. Perhaps you can catch on to the twist I used: instead of asking if you believe in god... Ask people what they worship. Although it appears some people are in denial of that even.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

You are really determined to declare that everyone worships.
Only a practicing worshiper would be so obsessed as to ascribe worship to everyone else.
I know no one that worships anything unless worshiping a can of beer counts.

If you understand the use of the word worship in this thread, yes. Worshipping something is unescapable. We're not obsessed we're just observant. To phrase the question another way - "Is there anything you hold in your life that is more important than yourself? Something that is worth sacrificing yourself for?"

And yes, a can of beer counts. For the use of the term worship in this thread - you are correct many people worship the almighty can of beer (or bottle of whiskey or...). And many of those people will deny that they've wrapped their life around the booze bottle.


The people I know get up and go to work, eat, sleep, fish, hunt, mow the grass and do all the things in their life without significant contemplation.

Socrates said, "the unexamined life is not worth living." This may have something to do with why suicide rates are so high. People don't contemplate their own existence, as a result life can feel like running in a gerbil wheel, exhausting . . . and pointless.


In fact it appears the most deranged among the population are those that spend an inordinate amount of time contemplating the color of their skin.


No argument from me.



Just because you have wrapped your life around the Bible does not mean the rest of us have.

We're not suggesting that everyone wraps their life around the Bible. We are asking, "If you don't wrap your life around the Bible, what do you wrap your life around?"

[T_McD]

I think we have reached the point where I will call foul. Claiming to worship and evidence of said worship are very different things.

Most believers are not recognizable as such apart from their statements. When you decide to use “worship” as meaning what one focuses on, you would do well to look in the mirror.

Don’t expect honest discourse when you insist that you are different when it comes to human behavior. I strive to focus on my family, but only because they are mine.

[PerpetualStudent]

Don’t expect honest discourse when you insist that you are different when it comes to human behavior. . But they're actually arguing the exact opposite. They are arguing that they are NOT unique. They focus on God and this is their primary focus in life. They would probably go further and say this organizes the rest of their life. They are then arguing that all humans have a primary focus that orders their life. So if it's not God, what is it that is the primary focus?

I don't see anything disengenuous about this question. You can disagree that a primary focus, an organizing principle, is "worship" but there's nothing out of bounds about the question.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

They focus on God and this is their primary focus in life. They would probably go further and say this organizes the rest of their life.

In theory yes - exactly. In practice - holy crap! If you examined my life I wouldn't blame you if you concluded that I worship the man-in-the-mirror.


Most believers are not recognizable as such apart from their statements.
Guilty as charged.


Claiming to worship and evidence of said worship are very different things.

True. But how would you ever possibly go from worshipping the man-in-the-mirror to worshipping the truth (for purposes of this thread I don't mean Christ) without first making the decision that there is something better-than-self to focus on? The alcoholic can take his last sip, but he then declares that to be his last sip, and that is the only hope he has of ever recovering. If said alcoholic admits he's worshipping the bottle but never makes a claim to worship something better he will remain an alcoholic.

BTW - thanks to all these are some extremely stimulating discussions!

[T_McD]

Good grief, i know I am talking to an intelligent person, and I think I am intelligentish, why is the written word so frustratingly difficult!!

I think we are getting close to understanding each other. Maybe.

I acknowledge that something greater than me exists, but I am ignorant of its true nature (some would say willfully ;) ) That being the case, I focus on what I can comprehend: the recognizable goodness of the world. I try, and fail, to resemble that which is intuitively good and virtuous.

When you say you center your life around God (or whatever you worship for the purpose of this thread), I see a hollow unknowable entity. It feels to me both forced and contrived. Regardless, I can recognize that an honest attempt to emulate Christian ideals is a worthwhile goal because it generally makes one more virtuous.

It seems like when I say I center on family or making myself more virtuous, you feel like I am centered on a similar hollow entity. (Pure conjecture, not trying to put words into mouths)

I am OK missing the big picture because I know the details I focus on are good and right and true.

[T_McD]

As an aside, do you think your conscience is god-given or akin to the Holy Spirit? I do not as I hear my own voice either admonishing me or congratulating me.

I only ask as that may be an additional source of confusion. If you see listening to your conscience as a nudge from God where I see it as myself intuitively recognizing my own goodness or lack thereof.

[UKShootist]

This whole thread is nothing more than an argument over semantics.


semantics
/sɪˈmantɪks/
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.
the meaning of a word, phrase, or text.
plural noun: semantics
"such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"



worship
/ˈwəːʃɪp/
noun
1.
the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.
"worship of the Mother Goddess"
synonyms: reverence, revering, worshipping, veneration, venerating, adoration, adoring, -olatry, devotion, praise, thanksgiving, praising, praying to, glorification, glorifying, glory, exaltation, exalting, extolment, extolling, homage, respect, honour, honouring, esteem; More
2.
BRITISH
used in addressing or referring to an important or high-ranking person, especially a magistrate or mayor.
"we were soon joined by His Worship the Mayor"
verb
verb: worship; 3rd person present: worships; past tense: worshipped; past participle: worshipped; gerund or present participle: worshipping; past tense: worshiped; past participle: worshiped; gerund or present participle: worshiping
1.
show reverence and adoration for (a deity).
"the Maya built jungle pyramids to worship their gods"
synonyms: revere, reverence, venerate, pay homage to, honour, adore, praise, pray to, bow down before, glorify, exalt, extol;

My conclusion? I don't worship anyone or anything. In fact, I find the whole concept demeaning.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

It seems like when I say I center on family or making myself more virtuous, you feel like I am centered on a similar hollow entity. (Pure conjecture, not trying to put words into mouths)

You're right, you picked up on it. I wouldn't call those things hollow though. Family is certainly a bigger, better, more noble goal than self. But speaking as a father, I've learned that my role is to lead them to something, to somewhere, I couldn't worship them. From a practical standpoint it just didn't work for me. Making yourself more virtuous would be a noble goal - I beg pardon if I came across as regarding that as hollow. I don't know why I didn't focus more thought and effort into discussing the virtues. Perhaps that will fuel another "perspectives from atheists" thread.



When you say you center your life around God (or whatever you worship for the purpose of this thread), I see a hollow unknowable entity.

Is it totally unknowable? As in what's the point in even trying? Or is inexhaustible (for lack of a better term) a better description? As in, you can pick up pieces of a puzzle, and they fit together and begin to form a picture, but after a while it dawns on you that you can't find any pieces that have a straight side (the ones that make the border)! And to make matters more confusing you put pieces together here, and other pieces there, but you can't figure out how the two pictures ultimately fit together. The more pieces you get the more confusing the whole muddled picture gets; yet at the same time, because the pieces that you do have, fit together perfectly and form a clear image you are confident that you at least have some of the puzzle right.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

In fact, I find the whole concept demeaning.

Is that because nothing is above you?

[UKShootist]

Is that because nothing is above you?

Semantics again. The Birkenhead Rules rightly place women and children above me. In the forces I insisted that I did not have 'superiors' but rather 'seniors'. Nobody is either above me or beneath me. Right now I have a ceiling above me, or if you prefer, a bedroom, a roof, clouds, the sky.

[T_McD]

You're right, you picked up on it. I wouldn't call those things hollow though. Family is certainly a bigger, better, more noble goal than self. But speaking as a father, I've learned that my role is to lead them to something, to somewhere, I couldn't worship them. From a practical standpoint it just didn't work for me. Making yourself more virtuous would be a noble goal - I beg pardon if I came across as regarding that as hollow. I don't know why I didn't focus more thought and effort into discussing the virtues. Perhaps that will fuel another "perspectives from atheists" thread.



Is it totally unknowable? As in what's the point in even trying? Or is inexhaustible (for lack of a better term) a better description? As in, you can pick up pieces of a puzzle, and they fit together and begin to form a picture, but after a while it dawns on you that you can't find any pieces that have a straight side (the ones that make the border)! And to make matters more confusing you put pieces together here, and other pieces there, but you can't figure out how the two pictures ultimately fit together. The more pieces you get the more confusing the whole muddled picture gets; yet at the same time, because the pieces that you do have, fit together perfectly and form a clear image you are confident that you at least have some of the puzzle right.

Yes the puzzle analogy is good. I have fragments but not near enough for me to claim to know what the puzzle portrays. And yes I am confident that what pieces I do have are there for a reason.

And you are correct again in that I don’t “worship” family as much as I focus my attention on them seeing the puzzle as well.

[T_McD]

Semantics again. The Birkenhead Rules rightly place women and children above me. In the forces I insisted that I did not have 'superiors' but rather 'seniors'. Nobody is either above me or beneath me. Right now I have a ceiling above me, or if you prefer, a bedroom, a roof, clouds, the sky.

Why are woman and children inherently more valuable than you?

Also, if I recall correctly you do not believe in any higher power, making mankind arguably the most intelligent life form?

And yes much of this discussion is semantics, getting past semantics is a requirement for any useful dialogue.

[UKShootist]

There is a rather good scene in the film Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. I can only paraphrase it. The son, played by Sidney Poitier, is arguing with his father who is arguing that the son owes him some duty or other because the father, as a postman, walked many thousands of miles to provide for his son. The son basically says "I owe you nothing, it's you who own me everything. I didn't ask to be born, that decision was made for me. You brought me into this world, you had a duty to do right by me in every way possible."

[T_McD]

There is a rather good scene in the film Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. I can only paraphrase it. The son, played by Sidney Poitier, is arguing with his father who is arguing that the son owes him some duty or other because the father, as a postman, walked many thousands of miles to provide for his son. The son basically says "I owe you nothing, it's you who own me everything. I didn't ask to be born, that decision was made for me. You brought me into this world, you had a duty to do right by me in every way possible."

So you owe your best in raising your own kids? I can agree with that.

What moral duty do you have to strangers’ wives and children?

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

The Birkenhead Rules rightly place women and children above me.

Nobody is either above me or beneath me.

Then the Birkenhead Rules wrongly place women and children above you?

[UKShootist]

Why are woman and children inherently more valuable than you?

It seems to be hardwired into humans. Would you refuse to try and rescue a drowning child at risk of your own life by doing so simply because there was a danger to yourself? Whatever the reality, the idea is detestable.


Also, if I recall correctly you do not believe in any higher power, making mankind arguably the most intelligent life form?

That I do not 'believe' in any higher power does. not mean I deny the possibility. I don't know is all. As for mankind being the most intelligent life form, that is a horrifying thought in collective terms although a possibility in individuals and inevitable to any self respecting solipsist. But, apropos the idea of a 'higher' life form, all I can say is that if this world was God's exam paper and I was marking itI would have to say "Could do better!" so maybe.


And yes much of this discussion is semantics, getting past semantics is a requirement for any useful dialogue.

I would suggest that 'getting past semantics' is the problem and not the solution.

[UKShootist]

Then the Birkenhead Rules wrongly place women and children above you?

Absolutely not! Everybody dies. If push came to shove I would prefer (and hope to have the courage) to give the opportunity of life to a woman and/or child, especially a child, than to die of old age carrying the memory of others that I could have saved. A fact often ignored is that such sentiments are part of keeping the human race alive.

[UKShootist]

So you owe your best in raising your own kids? I can agree with that.

What moral duty do you have to strangers’ wives and children?

To do them no harm and to offer help when necessary. It makes for a more comfortable society.

It is all the more ironic on this forum that such sentiments and issues can be seen in ape colonies, documented by scientists engaged in detailed observations for many years. This has been rejected by some here who know nothing of this research but who's religious bias tells them that such observations must just be misinterpreted coincidence.

[PerpetualStudent]

UK Shootist I think you are being disingenuous. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship

The second definition from Merriam Webster is
"2 : to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion
a celebrity worshipped by her fans"

[Blackwater]

You are really determined to declare that everyone worships.
Only a practicing worshiper would be so obsessed as to ascribe worship to everyone else.
I know no one that worships anything unless worshiping a can of beer counts.
And PS I don't drink - unlike a lot of Christians...
The people I know get up and go to work, eat, sleep, fish, hunt, mow the grass and do all the things in their life without significant contemplation. In fact it appears the most deranged among the population are those that spend an inordinate amount of time contemplating the color of their skin.
I don't really think your readings and interpretation of scripture mean a thing. Just because you have wrapped your life around the Bible does not mean the rest of us have. It is typical of your kind to assume that your worshipers view of the world applies to how everyone should think - but it doesn't.

Everyone DOES indeed worship something or some idea of something. What that thing is, depends on the individual, and what they choose to declare the main focus of their lives. One can worship beauty, sex, one's own ego, or all sorts of things, but what we focus our lives' efforts on is what we "worship." You see only one meaning for the word, but it applies elsewhere as well, and YOU cannot declare it to mean only one thing. That's self-obsession in the utmost! If your ego is so large as to allow you to be the arbiter of all things, semantic and otherwise, many of us have failed to get that memo, and do our own thinking for ourselves, and do not need the rantings of a self-obsessed egotist for any purpose whatsoever. Not trying to be mean, here; just accurate.

[Blackwater]

UK, your nest to last post makes me wonder if what you said is absolutely true. After all, you're not facing death right now, and my experience is that most folks can make statements about their own death, but when it comes, they often backpedal, and recant some of what they've said prior to that moment. But I'll take you at face value. You seem to enjoy calm, and cerebral discussions, but only in a theoretical sense. Their reality is usually much harder and more complex to deal with. But everybody has to make up their own minds about these type things. God be with you, my friend.

[T_McD]

It seems to be hardwired into humans. Would you refuse to try and rescue a drowning child at risk of your own life by doing so simply because there was a danger to yourself? Whatever the reality, the idea is detestable.

That I do not 'believe' in any higher power does. not mean I deny the possibility. I don't know is all. As for mankind being the most intelligent life form, that is a horrifying thought in collective terms although a possibility in individuals and inevitable to any self respecting solipsist. But, apropos the idea of a 'higher' life form, all I can say is that if this world was God's exam paper and I was marking itI would have to say "Could do better!" so maybe.

the hardwired things that make us human is essentially what I regard as truth and what I strive toward. I too have a big ??? when it comes to a higher power.

I would suggest that 'getting past semantics' is the problem and not the solution.

To me semantics are just the inevitable miscommunications that occur due to differing experiences. Twisting words around is indeed annoying but so far black Jaque and I have managed to have a meaningful discussion.

[T_McD]

Everyone DOES indeed worship something or some idea of something. What that thing is, depends on the individual, and what they choose to declare the main focus of their lives. One can worship beauty, sex, one's own ego, or all sorts of things, but what we focus our lives' efforts on is what we "worship." You see only one meaning for the word, but it applies elsewhere as well, and YOU cannot declare it to mean only one thing. That's self-obsession in the utmost! If your ego is so large as to allow you to be the arbiter of all things, semantic and otherwise, many of us have failed to get that memo, and do our own thinking for ourselves, and do not need the rantings of a self-obsessed egotist for any purpose whatsoever. Not trying to be mean, here; just accurate.

If it means more than one thing, grab a thesaurus and pick a different word. You are pot stirring, not adding anything meaningful. He is not alone in viewing worship as the unsubstantiated fawning of a feeble mind (my words). It most definitely does not have a positive connotation for many folks.

[T_McD]

To do them no harm and to offer help when necessary. It makes for a more comfortable society.

It is all the more ironic on this forum that such sentiments and issues can be seen in ape colonies, documented by scientists engaged in detailed observations for many years. This has been rejected by some here who know nothing of this research but who's religious bias tells them that such observations must just be misinterpreted coincidence.

Good, it is as I assumed: you are bound by your morals/duty. Some seem content to dicker about the origin of said morals rather than realize they are an intuitive thing that we all share, regardless of religious persuasion.

Now I will disagree somewhat with what I will call altruism displayed in nature (humans included). The argument can be made that altruism always has a benefit for the organism or at least the species overall. As you have said, “a comfortable society” is a selfish reason for chivalry as you are a member of said society.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

I was under the impression that it was just good iternet ettiquette that the person who begins a thread is the one who chooses which definition of a word shall be used. And I thought it was just expected that everyone just stuck with it for the remainder of the thread.

Anyone who has ever picked up a dictionary should know that words often have several meanings.

[T_McD]

I was under the impression that it was just good iternet ettiquette that the person who begins a thread is the one who chooses which definition of a word shall be used. And I thought it was just expected that everyone just stuck with it for the remainder of the thread.

Anyone who has ever picked up a dictionary should know that words often have several meanings.

That’s true and why I have attempted to use it, however many times you supplemented what you meant so I could understand. Blackwater seems incapable or unwilling to do so.

[UKShootist]

UK, your nest to last post makes me wonder if what you said is absolutely true. After all, you're not facing death right now, and my experience is that most folks can make statements about their own death, but when it comes, they often backpedal, and recant some of what they've said prior to that moment. But I'll take you at face value. You seem to enjoy calm, and cerebral discussions, but only in a theoretical sense. Their reality is usually much harder and more complex to deal with. But everybody has to make up their own minds about these type things. God be with you, my friend.

Indeed I made a bold statement (Bold talk for a two eyed fat man!) but I also expressed the hope for the courage to back it up if the need arose. Only the moment would tell what would happen. I will say that death is familiar companion. When my time comes, assuming that I have the time to reflect upon it, my main feeling will be one of annoyance, most likely because the weather forecast for tomorrow was excellent for a motorcycle ride or some such trivial reason. Again, if, for instance, trying to rescue a drowning child in circumstances where my death would be utterly certain but the rescue much less than certain I may well decide against it, who knows?

Another consideration is that in my near 70 years of life I have weathered much in the near death experiences of myself and the death of quite a few others, some very close to me. I have given over 50 years of my life to the service of my country and it's people (or quite a few of them at any rate) I just hope I can have the moral strength to do the right thing when required. That hope may be tempered by the luck of not having time to sit and think about it. As a new adherent to the stoic philosophy I even have my Memento Mori reminder nearby. Always something to ponder upon when you ride motorcycles. And thank you for the spirit of your blessing.

[UKShootist]

He is not alone in viewing worship as the unsubstantiated fawning of a feeble mind (my words). It most definitely does not have a positive connotation for many folks.

I think that is a touch strong, but I certainly find the term' worship' far from positive and the word 'fawning' does seem to fit well. Not necessarily from a feeble mind and many believers have a strong mind (which doesn't not automatically make them right).

[Thundarstick]

Side track

"Always something to ponder upon when you ride motorcycles."

It does seem that death is always riding pillion, doesn't it? Yesterday I had my first experience of a driver crossing three lanes of traffic at 65mph to fill the space I was already occupying! :shock:

[T_McD]

I think that is a touch strong, but I certainly find the term' worship' far from positive and the word 'fawning' does seem to fit well. Not necessarily from a feeble mind and many believers have a strong mind (which doesn't not automatically make them right).

I will agree to that.

[exile]

One of the things you notice if you read the Old Testament is that there is no prohibition against being an atheist, in other words, against worshipping nothing. That is because our heavenly Father knows that such a person has never been born. We all worship something.

In fact, in my opinion, we each have a simple choice, we can worship Self or we can worship Jesus Christ.

Now, you might be saying, "Wait a minute, are you saying that if I'm not a Christian I worship myself?" No, that's not really what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that each of us, regardless of whether we are Christians or not, are faced with a daily choice, to worship self or to worship Jesus Christ.

Some of the most avowed atheists I have ever encountered have also been some of the most self-absorbed people I have met.

"But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption."

Hebrews 9:11-12 (E.S.V.)

[T_McD]

In fact, in my opinion, we each have a simple choice, we can worship Self or we can worship Jesus Christ.

this is the false dichotomy that so many “believers” create and so many of us “pagans” refuse to tolerate. Just because I disagree with your choice in deity does not mean I think myself a deity

Some of the most avowed atheists I have ever encountered have also been some of the most self-absorbed people I have met.

The same could easily be said of Christians, hence why personal experience is not useful.


Also, using scripture to validate scripture is a bit disingenuous.

[dtknowles]

In fact, in my opinion, we each have a simple choice, we can worship Self or we can worship Jesus Christ.



What I am saying is that each of us, regardless of whether we are Christians or not, are faced with a daily choice, to worship self or to worship Jesus Christ.



)

The binary choice you suggest is not the only options.

One can worship God the creator of the Universe and believe that Jesus was just a wise man.

One can worship Gaia and believe there is no other God or worship Gaia and believe the higher God does not wish to be worshipped.

Tim

[exile]

"Come, everyone who thirsts,
come to the waters,
and he who has no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without price.
Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread,
and your labor for that which does not satisfy?
Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good,
and delight yourselves in rich food.
Incline your ear, and come to me;
hear, that your soul may live;
and I will make with you an everlasting covenant,
my steadfast, sure love for David."

Isaiah 55:1-3 (E.S.V.)


"I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture."

John 10:9 (E.S.V)

"For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:40 (E.S.V.)

[exile]

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I must take issue with the idea that "everybody dies."

God, who is an eternal being, created us, His children, in His image, as eternal beings as well. I believe that we will be resurrected, not only in spirit, but bodily as well, on the Last Day.


(Now I've got to go find a copy of 'Guess Whose Coming to Dinner", and watch it again.)

exile

[UKShootist]

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I must take issue with the idea that "everybody dies."

God, who is an eternal being, created us, His children, in His image, as eternal beings as well. I believe that we will be resurrected, not only in spirit, but bodily as well, on the Last Day.


(Now I've got to go find a copy of 'Guess Whose Coming to Dinner", and watch it again.)

exile

A wonderful opportunity to split hairs there. For a start, you have to die in order to be resurrected. But that is not the essence of the debate. You, understandably, state your belief as fact but to me it is not. And being resurrected in body? Would that be my body when it was at it's best or this aged wreck I'm in now?

[exile]

A wonderful opportunity to split hairs there. For a start, you have to die in order to be resurrected. But that is not the essence of the debate. You, understandably, state your belief as fact but to me it is not. And being resurrected in body? Would that be my body when it was at it's best or this aged wreck I'm in now?

I believe that we will be resurrected at our best. I certainly hope so anyway!

I have only been to the U.K. once, passed through there on my honeymoon. Had an Egg Mcmuffin and a bathroom break at Heathrow, but never made it out of the airport. Would like to go back someday though.

exile

[Blackwater]

If it means more than one thing, grab a thesaurus and pick a different word. You are pot stirring, not adding anything meaningful. He is not alone in viewing worship as the unsubstantiated fawning of a feeble mind (my words). It most definitely does not have a positive connotation for many folks.

We'll just have to differ on this. And please pardon my "feeble mind." It's the only one I've got. It was issued to me at birth, and I've stuffed it as best as I could, but I do not pretend it's infallible. But on the subject of "worship," I must stand firm.

[T_McD]

We'll just have to differ on this. And please pardon my "feeble mind." It's the only one I've got. It was issued to me at birth, and I've stuffed it as best as I could, but I do not pretend it's infallible. But on the subject of "worship," I must stand firm.

You recognize you are not infallible, but insist your deity is??? I just Don’t get it.

[exile]

"As for God, his way is perfect:
The Lord's word is flawless;
he shields all who take refuge in him."

2 Samuel 22:31 (N.I.V.)

[T_McD]

Using scripture to defend scripture will not sway minds. You are simply parading your own “righteousness”. See also: whitewashed tombs.

[PerpetualStudent]

You recognize you are not infallible, but insist your deity is??? I just Don’t get it.

I'll do you one better.

You recognize that not only are you fallible and every previous (and this current) iteration of "science" is fallible but insist upon hanging your entire world view on it. I don't get it.

Edit: To clarify. This is not a personal attack on anyone. Just a demonstration that both sides point not to anything they are themselves or indeed exists tangibly but upon an idealized version of what they proclaim to be Truth. Any argument that is defeated doesn't matter because it wasn't "true religion" or "real science" that was defeated only the flawed example here and the only thing that matters is the intangible ideal. For most arguments the participants find it is useful to point out in the opponent and ignore on your side. But it's in both.

[dverna]

I'll do you one better.

You recognize that not only are you fallible and every previous (and this current) iteration of "science" is fallible but insist upon hanging your entire world view on it. I don't get it.

Edit: To clarify. This is not a personal attack on anyone. Just a demonstration that both sides point not to anything they are themselves or indeed exists tangibly but upon an idealized version of what they proclaim to be Truth. Any argument that is defeated doesn't matter because it wasn't "true religion" or "real science" that was defeated only the flawed example here and the only thing that matters is the intangible ideal. For most arguments the participants find it is useful to point out in the opponent and ignore on your side. But it's in both.

You have stretched the fallibility of science a bit much. There is a lot of science that is known to be true and some science is based on theories. The difference with science is that as more knowledge (truth) is gained, science will change its position to encompass those "truths". Religion is not that disciplined.

For example, many Christians embrace the new earth concept and believe the earth is about 6000 years old. Much convolution is used to explain away the inconsistencies of this belief as we learn more about the earth and the universe. But there are also Christians who believe the earth is billions of years old. So even among Christians, they cannot agree on the "truth" or the interpretation of Genesis in the Bible.

IMHO, those "scientists" who try to prove the new earth concept are not scientists. It is one thing for a Pastor to believe such ridiculousness, but not for a scientist. My Pastor is one of those people who ridicules science and he gets a bunch of "amens" from the congregation when he does so. I see them as ignorant or brain washed...maybe stupid...maybe gullible? Certainly not scientists or critical thinkers. Why do I continue to attend this church.....he is a good Pastor and knows the Bible...he makes me think.

[T_McD]

I'll do you one better.

You recognize that not only are you fallible and every previous (and this current) iteration of "science" is fallible but insist upon hanging your entire world view on it. I don't get it.

Edit: To clarify. This is not a personal attack on anyone. Just a demonstration that both sides point not to anything they are themselves or indeed exists tangibly but upon an idealized version of what they proclaim to be Truth. Any argument that is defeated doesn't matter because it wasn't "true religion" or "real science" that was defeated only the flawed example here and the only thing that matters is the intangible ideal. For most arguments the participants find it is useful to point out in the opponent and ignore on your side. But it's in both.

Nothing personal taken, I will take criticism as easily as I give it.

That said, what science am I hanging my world view on? I will freely admit that the scientific establishment is self serving as much as the religious one, if not more.

My world view is based on my own observations as much as possible. That brings its own set of biases to deal with but at least they are my own and not someone else’s. I am very hesitant to make too many claims of certainty because to prove such claims is difficult. My most honest assessment of many issues is “I don’t know”; it admittedly feels like a cop out but at least it’s intellectually consistent (hopefully).

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

You recognize that not only are you fallible and every previous (and this current) iteration of "science" is fallible but insist upon hanging your entire world view on it. I don't get it.

It is possible that you can acknowledge science as fallible and yet hang your entire world view on it - you would do so because you sincerely believe that it is the best option available.

That said - I do not fall into the camp that hangs my world view on science.

[PerpetualStudent]

I will freely admit that the scientific establishment is self serving as much as the religious one, if not more.

My world view is based on my own observations as much as possible. That brings its own set of biases to deal with but at least they are my own and not someone else’s. I am very hesitant to make too many claims of certainty because to prove such claims is difficult. My most honest assessment of many issues is “I don’t know”; it admittedly feels like a cop out but at least it’s intellectually consistent (hopefully).

I think you and I are pretty much in the same boat there.

Blackjack and Dverna's comments are not quite fair (but they are close)

The difficulty with "Science fails forward" which is the thrust of "This is why I hang my worldview on science and eschew philosophy and religion" is that how do you define "forward"? You'll get some fighting about scientific advances, technology generally, which of course implicates social organization and we're back to the never settling economic measuring contest I mentioned before. Both fundamentalism and scientism are flawed, and these are the hard cores of conflict between the atheisticly inclined and the theistically inclined.

[T_McD]

Yes I have to agree we are getting down to fundamental differences in thought. My goal in pursuing these discussions is not to change beliefs but rather to challenge the notion that these fundamental differences amount to much.

To me if I am able to have an intellectual conversation someone and we finally conclude that we must agree to disagree, I have proven to myself that we have much in common. I am far from a bleeding heart, but it is disheartening to see fierce division in spite of overwhelming similarities.

[T_McD]

It is possible that you can acknowledge science as fallible and yet hang your entire world view on it - you would do so because you sincerely believe that it is the best option available.

That said - I do not fall into the camp that hangs my world view on science.


Would it be fair to say the same of religion? Or is infallibility of scripture a personal requirement for your world view? (This is admittedly wandering off topic so PM if you’d rather)

[Blackwater]

You recognize you are not infallible, but insist your deity is??? I just Don’t get it.

I must confess, I don't understand what one has to do with the other. I and my deity are two completely separate beings. Please explain.

[Blackwater]

Nothing personal taken, I will take criticism as easily as I give it.

That said, what science am I hanging my world view on? I will freely admit that the scientific establishment is self serving as much as the religious one, if not more.

My world view is based on my own observations as much as possible. That brings its own set of biases to deal with but at least they are my own and not someone else’s. I am very hesitant to make too many claims of certainty because to prove such claims is difficult. My most honest assessment of many issues is “I don’t know”; it admittedly feels like a cop out but at least it’s intellectually consistent (hopefully).

If your "world view" is based on your meager life experiences, which CANNOT encompass all of human knowledge and experience, then what makes you so all-fired sure of yourself and your contentions? If you have never had a conversion experience, or had one and chose to walk away from it for whatever reasons seemed sufficient at the time, then how can you even relate to a believer, or truly consider the things he says, to you or to anyone else, or to all???

First you limit your intake, and define it as including only the finite, and then challenge those who believe, and KNOW (yes, KNOW) Christ, and all that He brought to us? This is a lot like the story of "The King's New Clothes," isn't it? Only in reverse. The king in the story was told he was wearing the finest clothing, but he was naked as a jaybird! He was "seeing" things that weren't there. You, on the other hand, are failing to see things that you don't WANT to be there. So as I said, it's the reverse, but the principle applies nevertheless.

If you wanted to find faith, you'd make a FAR more diligent search for it than you have. And your attitude is one that could never "hear" Christ's voice - far too self-possessed and haughty. If you want to depend on yourself for all there is in life, then you can absolutely do that, but it's not necessary, and there really IS a better and far more fulfilling way to go. But it's totally up to you whether you really want or intend to find the simple Truth or not. It's very easy to make up your own, and finding Truth CAN sometimes be rather arduous, so it's not for the frivolous types, or the self-possessed, or the wanton types. But it's always there, even for those who currently don't believe, or don't even want to. Life is funny, and sometimes, things happen that totally alter a person's outlook and attitude. Remember, even people like C. S. Lewis came to not only believe, but he became one of Christianity's most prominent and highly lauded apologists, who explained much of the true value of faith, was in the beginning an highly dedicated and resolute atheist like yourself. And even though he made a rather monumental effort to disprove Christianity and all other religions, he came to faith in that very process.

But maybe this is why so many atheists adamantly refuse to seriously address the matter? Fear of discovering how terribly wrong they were is not something that enhances the larger egos, that look only to themselves for answers. Lack of, or having turned away from, a true conversion experience can be a huge stumbling block for many disbelievers who simply are afraid of finding what they don't want to find. But if they did, they'd find something entirely different from what they always tried to make it out to be. They'd find fulfillment and joy unlike anything they could ever have known or experienced as a non-believer. And it's all out there, waiting for anyone to discover. And in reality, it doesn't take all that much study or consideration. All it really takes is a humble spirit, that searches sincerely. Then, and I think only then, can they know what the rest of us believers already know. And don't expect an easy life when the conversion occurs, should that be your fate. Christ never promised us an easy life if we came to Him. On the contrary, he told us specifically that we'd be taunted, sometimes harmed physically, and even hunted to the death at times. But no matter what challenges face us, Christ will always be there with us, and if our lives are to end in the process, He'll be there to extend His hand, and welcome us into Heaven, to live in peace and harmony with Him forever, without end. All you have to look forward to, were you right, is the nothingness that the Buddha described as "nirvana." And that's not much of a future if you ask me. But it's not MY life, it's YOURS. Do as you see fit, but beware! Many who have tried to disprove Christianity have become believers! It just seems to work out that way, and it's not by accident!

[Blackwater]

Sounds like you're having much the same experience as I had growing up. But you're right, even those old preachers, with their lack of education (and thus weren't very good at drawing fine dividing lines), made me think. I'd usually do as you seem to, and just find one point in the sermon, and then sit and think about it for the duration. And indeed, I did learn a lot that way. But I've learned more reading C. S. Lewis, Chesterton and a number of others, than I ever could have in a lifetime of listening to those old preachers. A man can't teach what he doesn't know, and through no fault of their own, really, they just didn't know a lot. It often takes a lot of scholarly learning to separate the wheat from the chaf, and the really good writers convey a lot that lesser educated men can, regardless of their sincerity and devotion.

And the very act of attending church is a sort of vote, with our feet, for the Lord, and His plans for us. So don't stop going, but at some point, they'll get a new preacher, maybe, or you'll hear of a really good one, and move to that church, or .... who knows? The development of our faith as a Christian is a curious thing, and it often tends to come in spurts, and often, when we least expect it, or have thought about giving up the search. Christ promised "Seek and ye shall find," and that is very, very true, BUT .... He never said we'd find it easily. Maybe He wants us to work for it, so we'll appreciate it more??? All I know is that I don't believe anyone has ever come to Christ, and been totally satisfied with what he knew at that point. All of us search. It's just that some maybe have more time to do it than many of us others. And we each are often searching for different things, so it's really no great wonder that the search can be frustrating if we are anxious to find the answers. I know I was anxious, and that really delayed my edification quite a while. But the search never ends for any of us, even the most learned. That old principle that the more we know, the more questions we have, applies to our search for "perfect understanding" as much or more than it does to any other search of any kind. But as I look back, I have to have a great deal of humor, for I made some really dumb mistakes that delayed my edification quite a bit. But the search was worth every milisecond of it! Finding true peace and satisfaction is worth anything it costs us in the process. I always fought a rather large temper. Now, I haven't lost it in quite a while, and I'm not sure that I could now. It's simply the process of growth, and that never happens rapidly, but steadily, if we just keep on our feed.

Just enjoy all the conundrums you encounter, and they'll likely wind up showing you the Truth. It's a paradox, but it's very much real.

[T_McD]

I must confess, I don't understand what one has to do with the other. I and my deity are two completely separate beings. Please explain.

Let me preface by saying, no offense is meant. I am just trying to speak plainly.

To me your deity is a personification of your belief. Christianity is predicated on the notion of the “personal relationship” with God.

My point was this,

You are not infallible. It follows then, that you cannot claim your beliefs are infallible. If your beliefs are not infallible, then on what do you base your claim of an infallible God?

You are appealing to a moral authority that exists only in your mind. (In so far as you claim to know the identity of God, and that he is infallible)

There seems to me little difference in thinking yourself god and thinking yourself qualified to know the nature of God. What places you at an advantage over me in the identification of God?


Sorry to ramble, just getting thoughts down on paper so to speak.

[UKShootist]

This is a lot like the story of "The King's New Clothes," isn't it? Only in reverse. The king in the story was told he was wearing the finest clothing, but he was naked as a jaybird! He was "seeing" things that weren't there.

At risk of splitting hairs, you completely misunderstand the story of the King's New Clothes. The King wasn't seeing things that were not there, he was pretending that he could see he was wearing the finest clothes because he had been told that only truly clever people could see these magic clothes, so he and all his courtiers pretended to see fine clothes for fear of being condemned as fools which, of course, is what they were. It remains pertinent to this discussion though.

[Blackwater]

Nothing personal taken, I will take criticism as easily as I give it.

That said, what science am I hanging my world view on? I will freely admit that the scientific establishment is self serving as much as the religious one, if not more.

My world view is based on my own observations as much as possible. That brings its own set of biases to deal with but at least they are my own and not someone else’s. I am very hesitant to make too many claims of certainty because to prove such claims is difficult. My most honest assessment of many issues is “I don’t know”; it admittedly feels like a cop out but at least it’s intellectually consistent (hopefully).

If your "world view" is based solely on your own world experience, then it's no great wonder that you don't believe! If you've never had a real conversion experience, then how could you possibly know or realize what Christians talk about? You can't. And it surely seems that you don't even want to.

Let's just assume, for sake of argument here, that God really does exist, and that He's all-powerful and all-knowing. What makes you think that He can have no other means of communicating with his lower creatures except via shaking the molecules of air, that we call "sound?" What makes you think He couldn't talk to one person in a crowd of thousands? What makes you think He couldn't have created the entire universe out of nothing????

Your limited view is what keeps you doubting. If you were truly open-minded, and your heart was open, you'd very likely realize that it's YOU, and not God, who is insufficient for understanding salvation and all the rest. God gave us thunder and lightning, and a voice from above. Then He gave us the prophets, and miracles. But even those were insufficient to get us to follow Him, so in a final act of Love and Mercy, He sent His only begotten Son, to teach us and set examples for us to follow. And now, those who can't or won't even acknowledge His existence and teachings, have had the last vestige of effort on the part of God to bring us, his recalcitrant flock, all together under His protection and grace. Where else could they wind up being relegated to, but hell, to spend eternity there with the Evil One? It all makes perfect sense, if you really stop and think about it. But non-believers simply don't WANT to find the Truth, so they turn away from good counsel, and declare "There is no God because I haven't found Him!" What a foolish way to conduct one's self! But it's legitimate. God granted us that privilege, if it's what we choose. But it'll never really make sense, in the end. And almost surely, you haven't found God because you haven't wanted to, and it's just that simple. You rule out any course that might tend to lead you to belief, and then complain because you haven't found it??? C'mon, man! Get real, and at least use some of that "logic" and "reason" that you non-believers so highly tout! You don't believe because you simply don't WANT to, and avoid anything and anybody that might actually make any inroads into your hardened heart or closed mind. God be with you. You need Him sorely!

[T_McD]

Sounds like you're having much the same experience as I had growing up. But you're right, even those old preachers, with their lack of education (and thus weren't very good at drawing fine dividing lines), made me think. I'd usually do as you seem to, and just find one point in the sermon, and then sit and think about it for the duration. And indeed, I did learn a lot that way. But I've learned more reading C. S. Lewis, Chesterton and a number of others, than I ever could have in a lifetime of listening to those old preachers. A man can't teach what he doesn't know, and through no fault of their own, really, they just didn't know a lot. It often takes a lot of scholarly learning to separate the wheat from the chaf, and the really good writers convey a lot that lesser educated men can, regardless of their sincerity and devotion.

And the very act of attending church is a sort of vote, with our feet, for the Lord, and His plans for us. So don't stop going, but at some point, they'll get a new preacher, maybe, or you'll hear of a really good one, and move to that church, or .... who knows? The development of our faith as a Christian is a curious thing, and it often tends to come in spurts, and often, when we least expect it, or have thought about giving up the search. Christ promised "Seek and ye shall find," and that is very, very true, BUT .... He never said we'd find it easily. Maybe He wants us to work for it, so we'll appreciate it more??? All I know is that I don't believe anyone has ever come to Christ, and been totally satisfied with what he knew at that point. All of us search. It's just that some maybe have more time to do it than many of us others. And we each are often searching for different things, so it's really no great wonder that the search can be frustrating if we are anxious to find the answers. I know I was anxious, and that really delayed my edification quite a while. But the search never ends for any of us, even the most learned. That old principle that the more we know, the more questions we have, applies to our search for "perfect understanding" as much or more than it does to any other search of any kind. But as I look back, I have to have a great deal of humor, for I made some really dumb mistakes that delayed my edification quite a bit. But the search was worth every milisecond of it! Finding true peace and satisfaction is worth anything it costs us in the process. I always fought a rather large temper. Now, I haven't lost it in quite a while, and I'm not sure that I could now. It's simply the process of growth, and that never happens rapidly, but steadily, if we just keep on our feed.

Just enjoy all the conundrums you encounter, and they'll likely wind up showing you the Truth. It's a paradox, but it's very much real.

I must take issue with a few points:

1) I have not dismissed any belief, rather in attempting to attain it, I have been left wanting. Those who truly dismiss religion do not engage in these discussions. Those who have not chewed over their beliefs but are willing to devote their life to it are fools.

2) I addressed this in my previous post but I will give you time to respond; what makes you more qualified than me to identify God?

[T_McD]

If your "world view" is based solely on your own world experience, then it's no great wonder that you don't believe! If you've never had a real conversion experience, then how could you possibly know or realize what Christians talk about? You can't. And it surely seems that you don't even want to.

Let's just assume, for sake of argument here, that God really does exist, and that He's all-powerful and all-knowing. What makes you think that He can have no other means of communicating with his lower creatures except via shaking the molecules of air, that we call "sound?" What makes you think He couldn't talk to one person in a crowd of thousands? What makes you think He couldn't have created the entire universe out of nothing????

Your limited view is what keeps you doubting. If you were truly open-minded, and your heart was open, you'd very likely realize that it's YOU, and not God, who is insufficient for understanding salvation and all the rest. God gave us thunder and lightning, and a voice from above. Then He gave us the prophets, and miracles. But even those were insufficient to get us to follow Him, so in a final act of Love and Mercy, He sent His only begotten Son, to teach us and set examples for us to follow. And now, those who can't or won't even acknowledge His existence and teachings, have had the last vestige of effort on the part of God to bring us, his recalcitrant flock, all together under His protection and grace. Where else could they wind up being relegated to, but hell, to spend eternity there with the Evil One? It all makes perfect sense, if you really stop and think about it. But non-believers simply don't WANT to find the Truth, so they turn away from good counsel, and declare "There is no God because I haven't found Him!" What a foolish way to conduct one's self! But it's legitimate. God granted us that privilege, if it's what we choose. But it'll never really make sense, in the end. And almost surely, you haven't found God because you haven't wanted to, and it's just that simple. You rule out any course that might tend to lead you to belief, and then complain because you haven't found it??? C'mon, man! Get real, and at least use some of that "logic" and "reason" that you non-believers so highly tout! You don't believe because you simply don't WANT to, and avoid anything and anybody that might actually make any inroads into your hardened heart or closed mind. God be with you. You need Him sorely!


Then you believe only because you want to. That is indeed a fine personal justification, but it doesn’t translate well to others. Am I to believe based on your personal desire to believe?

[Blackwater]

Yes I have to agree we are getting down to fundamental differences in thought. My goal in pursuing these discussions is not to change beliefs but rather to challenge the notion that these fundamental differences amount to much.



So in your world, there's little difference between belief and disbelief??? There's no difference between Heaven and Hell??? Then there's no difference between good and evil! Man has searched since time immemorial, for an understanding of God. He has given us all manner of clues and facts and miracles to try to teach us that indeed, there IS a "great beyond," where He is King and we can be a part of that realm, if we simply honor Him, and submit to His direction and advice. He started out with thunder and lightning, and a voice from above. Then He gave us the prophets and miracles that could not have been possible were there really no God. Then, He even gave us His only begotten Son, to pay the price on the cross for OUR sins, and teach us and lead us, and try to counsel and advise us, with the best that we could ever possibly hope to have received. And yet, some still choose the path of atheism, and turn away from anything or anybody who might lead them to Truth in Christ. Maybe they just want to continue their chosen ways, some of which conflict with the scriptures as "sin." And not wanting to give those up, they turn away from anything that might make them feel guilt or condemnation. They want to FEEL sanctified without actually BEING sanctified.

OK. If that's what you want. But don't ever say you didn't have MUCH better options! It's YOUR choice, and only you will be responsible for that choice. God be with you. You truly need Him.

[UKShootist]

But maybe this is why so many atheists adamantly refuse to seriously address the matter? Fear of discovering how terribly wrong they were is not something that enhances the larger egos, that look only to themselves for answers.

Interestingly, that almost exactly applies to my thoughts on the fears of Christians. I have seriously addressed this matter for most of my adult life.

Here's the difference. I can accept the possibility that there might be a God. I can accept the possibility that Jesus might have some sort of relationship with that God. I can fairly easily accept that Jesus actually existed and that he was a thoroughly decent sort. I have the gravest doubts, but I can accept the possibility. The things I cannot accept are the most of the Old Testament which I regard as man made mythology. Neither can I accept that a God that is supposed to love us all so much that he sent his only son etc. etc. would nevertheless damn me personally to an eternity, or even lets say a million billion trillion years of burning in hellfire, just a tiny part of eternity, just for being unconvinced when everything I have ever studied has left me unconvinced. So, while I might accept the possibility of God, and Jesus, I cannot accept the man made religion that goes alongside it, that has been demonstrably corrupted and abused for millennia by self serving vile people.

As a stoic and though my life's experience I can accept I will die, however annoying the prospect is. If I find myself face to face with God and/or Jesus to be told I am off to hell for all eternity, not for the sins of my life, which I acknowledge and regret, but for no other reason than I could not find it in my heart to accept Jesus as my personal saviour then I will turn my back on Him gladly in the knowledge that I would find better company in hell.

I apologise should this offend anyone but it is the literal truth so, if thine eye offends thee then pluck it out. It's your eye after all.

P.S. Several schools of Buddhism, I believe, consider 'nirvana' as being one with God. There must be worse ways to spend eternity.

[T_McD]

So in your world, there's little difference between belief and disbelief??? There's no difference between Heaven and Hell??? Then there's no difference between good and evil! Man has searched since time immemorial, for an understanding of God. He has given us all manner of clues and facts and miracles to try to teach us that indeed, there IS a "great beyond," where He is King and we can be a part of that realm, if we simply honor Him, and submit to His direction and advice. He started out with thunder and lightning, and a voice from above. Then He gave us the prophets and miracles that could not have been possible were there really no God. Then, He even gave us His only begotten Son, to pay the price on the cross for OUR sins, and teach us and lead us, and try to counsel and advise us, with the best that we could ever possibly hope to have received. And yet, some still choose the path of atheism, and turn away from anything or anybody who might lead them to Truth in Christ. Maybe they just want to continue their chosen ways, some of which conflict with the scriptures as "sin." And not wanting to give those up, they turn away from anything that might make them feel guilt or condemnation. They want to FEEL sanctified without actually BEING sanctified.

OK. If that's what you want. But don't ever say you didn't have MUCH better options! It's YOUR choice, and only you will be responsible for that choice. God be with you. You truly need Him.

Since you refuse to meet me in the middle, I will argue on your terms.

The greatest commandments are to love God with all your heart, and to love your neighbor as yourself. In my ignorance, I am unable to truly love God because I cannot fathom his nature. It follows then that I must devote myself to loving my neighbors as myself, because I can fathom that. In what way does this make me beneath you and by what authority do you claim to know the true nature of God?

[Blackwater]

Let me preface by saying, no offense is meant. I am just trying to speak plainly.

To me your deity is a personification of your belief. Christianity is predicated on the notion of the “personal relationship” with God.

My point was this,

You are not infallible. It follows then, that you cannot claim your beliefs are infallible. If your beliefs are not infallible, then on what do you base your claim of an infallible God?

You are appealing to a moral authority that exists only in your mind. (In so far as you claim to know the identity of God, and that he is infallible)

There seems to me little difference in thinking yourself god and thinking yourself qualified to know the nature of God. What places you at an advantage over me in the identification of God?


Sorry to ramble, just getting thoughts down on paper so to speak.

If you've interpreted me as thinking most of the things I say are infallible, then you have misinterpreted me badly. I am fully aware that I am fallible, but I don't speak without very strong conviction that I'm right when I'm discussing matters of the eternal. I am not the ONLY source, either! I couldn't possibly be! Have you read C. S. Lewis? If you haven't, you need to. He was an unbeliever who, after being injured seriously in WWI, went to one of England's finest universities with the expressed intent of proving Christianity wrong, and wrong-headed, and all other religions as well. Yet, in that process, he became a devout believer, and one of Christianity's greatest writers ever. But he is at times harsh, and won't varnish the plain truth. You may even enjoy his writing, even though you don't presently believe, and may end up dying that way.

But there are a FEW things in this life that I do, sincerely and honestly KNOW, as well and as much as a man can possibly know anything. If this life is not merely some big illusion, as Buddha contended, then how could anyone leave this world without KNOWING a lot of stuff?

If you choose to doubt what I say I know, I know some will do that. But it is incumbent upon me to counter what I believe to the central marrow of my bones to be evil and lies, whenever I encounter them. So believe or not, it's OK with me either way. At least I've done all I know how to do, and it was insufficient to break through the glass you surround yourself with. Even when the angels in Heaven rebelled, 1/3 of them sided with Satan, and will spend eternity there in Hell with Him. It's no great surprise that quite a few mortals deny Him as well. But it'll never change the consequences of disbelief, nor the great tragedy of missing all the wonder and awe that true faith brings to us. God be with you, my friend. And never give up searching. Just try doing it with a humble spirit and a truly open mind, and you may surprise yourself.

[Blackwater]

Since you refuse to meet me in the middle, I will argue on your terms.

The greatest commandments are to love God with all your heart, and to love your neighbor as yourself. In my ignorance, I am unable to truly love God because I cannot fathom his nature. It follows then that I must devote myself to loving my neighbors as myself, because I can fathom that. In what way does this make me beneath you and by what authority do you claim to know the true nature of God?

Nobody's beneath anybody else. We're all sinners, and some are saved by Grace. That puts us all in the same basket, but it will never keep us from seeing things as we wish to see them, or turning away from a "full truth" and trying to limp forward with only a partial dose of it. What is it that makes you think that an all-powerful and all-knowing God can't or didn't do exactly what is written in the Bible? If you LIKE the loving of others, then please continue. But if you cannot love God, simply because He doesn't provide you with the things you desire, then who do you think can do anything about that? Only you can change your own mind, and nobody else. So proceed with your life as you wish, but don't say you've never heard any reasons to believe. Even science today, with all its wonders, has PROVEN that all of the things recorded in the Bible are technically possible, and therefore may actually be true. Even Jesus' physical body passing through a locked door in the upper room after the crucifixion can be proved with subatomic theory! So now, even science has given us every reason to believe that we could possibly want or need. The only decision left, really, is whether or not any individual WANTS to find the real Truth, and come to belief in the process. The decision is up to you, my friend, and I say all these things with a light spirit and the hope that you will find your personal way to God one day. God be with you, for He'll never leave you, and will always be there despite whatever you've said or done in the past. He gives a completely new life - a new starting point, IF you want it. I sincerely wish you well.

[T_McD]

Nobody's beneath anybody else. We're all sinners, and some are saved by Grace. That puts us all in the same basket, but it will never keep us from seeing things as we wish to see them, or turning away from a "full truth" and trying to limp forward with only a partial dose of it. What is it that makes you think that an all-powerful and all-knowing God can't or didn't do exactly what is written in the Bible? If you LIKE the loving of others, then please continue. But if you cannot love God, simply because He doesn't provide you with the things you desire, then who do you think can do anything about that? Only you can change your own mind, and nobody else. So proceed with your life as you wish, but don't say you've never heard any reasons to believe. Even science today, with all its wonders, has PROVEN that all of the things recorded in the Bible are technically possible, and therefore may actually be true. Even Jesus' physical body passing through a locked door in the upper room after the crucifixion can be proved with subatomic theory! So now, even science has given us every reason to believe that we could possibly want or need. The only decision left, really, is whether or not any individual WANTS to find the real Truth, and come to belief in the process. The decision is up to you, my friend, and I say all these things with a light spirit and the hope that you will find your personal way to God one day. God be with you, for He'll never leave you, and will always be there despite whatever you've said or done in the past. He gives a completely new life - a new starting point, IF you want it. I sincerely wish you well.

I will ask again: by what authority do you claim to know the true nature of God?

Scripture would be appropriate here.

[Blackwater]

Interestingly, that almost exactly applies to my thoughts on the fears of Christians. I have seriously addressed this matter for most of my adult life.

Here's the difference. I can accept the possibility that there might be a God. I can accept the possibility that Jesus might have some sort of relationship with that God. I can fairly easily accept that Jesus actually existed and that he was a thoroughly decent sort. I have the gravest doubts, but I can accept the possibility. The things I cannot accept are the most of the Old Testament which I regard as man made mythology. Neither can I accept that a God that is supposed to love us all so much that he sent his only son etc. etc. would nevertheless damn me personally to an eternity, or even lets say a million billion trillion years of burning in hellfire, just a tiny part of eternity, just for being unconvinced when everything I have ever studied has left me unconvinced. So, while I might accept the possibility of God, and Jesus, I cannot accept the man made religion that goes alongside it, that has been demonstrably corrupted and abused for millennia by self serving vile people.

As a stoic and though my life's experience I can accept I will die, however annoying the prospect is. If I find myself face to face with God and/or Jesus to be told I am off to hell for all eternity, not for the sins of my life, which I acknowledge and regret, but for no other reason than I could not find it in my heart to accept Jesus as my personal saviour then I will turn my back on Him gladly in the knowledge that I would find better company in hell.

I apologise should this offend anyone but it is the literal truth so, if thine eye offends thee then pluck it out. It's your eye after all.

P.S. Several schools of Buddhism, I believe, consider 'nirvana' as being one with God. There must be worse ways to spend eternity.

Atheists always bring up the "If God is so Loving and kind, why how could he throw me into Hell forever?" They're twisting, as they always do, the situation. God gave man a free will. He also gave man a very good mind - not the equal of His, but very good nevertheless. He gave us all the evidence and information we'll ever need to believe, but some simply don't WANT to believe, and thus, they avoid any real delving into His words and wisdom. So no matter how "wise" they may be in their occupations and in their social skills, they have made a DECISION, and as always, we're solely responsible for all decisions we make. The decision, though, about Christ, carries with it known consequences, and those who laugh and poke fun at that proposition, one day will have to pay for their decision by being unqualified to enter Heaven. If God allowed the sinful into Heaven, it wouldn't be Heaven any more! How can you not understand that? And it's YOU who decides your fate, not God, or Christ. They can never be responsible for the decisions you make. I'd think that would be clear, and as plain as the nose on your face.

You continue to post your doubts, but not any real reasons for them. I know you must have them. Maybe you've just been "too busy to mess with all that???" Or maybe you are just averse to believing that there's anything beyond our finite, physical world??? I don't know, and that's your business. We here, discuss our beliefs, and the reasons for our beliefs. If you want to join in, you're always welcome. But it's poor form to state your beliefs without backing them up, especially when you're challenging the bulk of the posters here. Do you have real reasons, or do you just not want to believe?

[Blackwater]

I will ask again: by what authority do you claim to know the true nature of God?

Scripture would be appropriate here.

By the authority of having communed with Him, prayed for guidance and understanding, and it was given to me, and by simply reading His word, and believing and at least partially understanding it, so that I have zero doubts about His existence, and His intent, and His power to effect all that He has told us that He can, and will do. If you've never communed with Him, it's not because you can't, it's because you've never really sought Him, so that you could. That's just how it works, and if you don't like it, don't be angry with me, because it's not me who made it that way, but God. He told us much about His will and His nature, and more is revealed in how He has dealt with his people. What more could a man ask for???

[T_McD]

By the authority of having communed with Him, prayed for guidance and understanding, and it was given to me, and by simply reading His word, and believing and at least partially understanding it, so that I have zero doubts about His existence, and His intent, and His power to effect all that He has told us that He can, and will do. If you've never communed with Him, it's not because you can't, it's because you've never really sought Him, so that you could. That's just how it works, and if you don't like it, don't be angry with me, because it's not me who made it that way, but God. He told us much about His will and His nature, and more is revealed in how He has dealt with his people. What more could a man ask for???

I will be blunt:

Can you through Scripture claim with confidence to know God’s true nature? Please cite scripture!

If your belief if based on some personal experience, then how can you expect others to get on board?

[UKShootist]

You continue to post your doubts, but not any real reasons for them. I know you must have them. Maybe you've just been "too busy to mess with all that???" Or maybe you are just averse to believing that there's anything beyond our finite, physical world??? I don't know, and that's your business. We here, discuss our beliefs, and the reasons for our beliefs. If you want to join in, you're always welcome. But it's poor form to state your beliefs without backing them up, especially when you're challenging the bulk of the posters here. Do you have real reasons, or do you just not want to believe?

There is an old Yorkshire saying "Believe half of what you see and nowt (nothing) of what you hear." My first response is to challenge the concept of 'belief' without foundation. By definition, an agnostic does not believe. The simple fact is, I don't know. If we can only discuss here our (your?) beliefs then this is little more than an echo chamber. I certainly do not just not want to believe but I refuse point blank to believe what I do not find credible. There is an attitude creeping in here of the pupil in class asking the teacher to explain something and who promptly gets beaten for not just learning it by rote. The cheek of wanting to actually understand.

Now, to return to the subject of "I don't know" it is my nature to try and find out. The first lesson I am instructed in amounts to "Because it says so in this book". OK, I read the book. Then I find out who wrote it, it's sources, which parts were left out, which were put in, and who decided which was which and why. The only answer can be that is is a work of man. Parts of it, indeed most of at least the New Testament may even be factual. Consider this, a thought has just occurred to me, how much weaker would the Catholic Church, the representative of Christianity for nearly two millennia, be politically if it had just concerned itself with the New Testament and the works of Jesus rather than relying upon the hellfire and damnation of the Old Testament? And it is quite certain that the Catholic Church is nothing if not political.

We are given all the evidence we ever need? I discuss such subjects with many people of all faiths and persuasions, as far as it is possible for me. Evidence then. For 32 years of my life my work, and much of my life, has been concerned with finding evidence. I was paid well to do this. I understand evidence. How many times in the course of those years do you imagine I might have listened to someone insist that I must believe them for no other reason than they say a thing is so and what's more their friends all say more or less the same story when there is not a shred of proof?

"It says so in this book", the final 'proof' people will offer. They will say that there is endless supporting evidence to prove what the book says, but this is mostly found in their book, of course. But what of the other books? Muslims will cite proofs of the Koran with the same absolutist conviction and as much, or little, 'evidence' as those citing the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, and may even be willing to die defending their beliefs.

So, how do I, who doesn't know but who would rather like to find out, choose who to believe when there are so many? When as a student I ask one who would be a teacher a question about their teachings that seem to me to have no rational basis in truth that rather than address that question I am metaphorically beaten by that teacher for questioning his teachings which much to my surprise, seems to be your current approach.

I have frequently posted the reasons for my doubts but it seems that my words become invisible in the face of the certainty of the faithful because they contradict blind faith and cannot therefore be even worth the reading. It is a fact that I will never, can never, believe the Story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as anything other than allegorical. Same goes for Noah's flood. The sheer variety of denials about the age of the Earth, dinosaur fossils etc. means I cannot give any credence at all to anything said about it by anyone seeking to prove the Biblical version.

In the face of this conflict of opinions, I cannot call it conflict of evidence, all from learned, devout, people, all disagreeing on so much, I, a mere mortal of limited intellect (as are we all) am supposed to make a leap of faith which will be nothing more than the intellectual equivalent of tossing a coin and decide to believe in one of these many options. No. It's simply not good enough.

Here is my faith, for what it's worth. IF there is a God, IF He happens to be along the lines quoted in the Bible, and IF He feels the need to judge me, then any God worthy of the name will judge me on more than if I just professed a blind faith in his existence.

[T_McD]

to me it boils down to whether belief trumps actions or actions trump belief ( or lack thereof). I struggle to understand those that find comfort in their beliefs.

[1hole]

IF He feels the need to judge me, then any God worthy of the name will judge me on more than if I just professed a blind faith in his existence[/B].

WHAT? IF there is a God and if he doesn't let you get your way then you think he's not much of a god? Goodness man, there's more than a little bit of arrogance in there! Look around you, the evidence of God is observable. Faith isn't stupid. Faith is only blind if the seeker refuses to see and no one can "see" with his eyes squeezed shut. And blind professions of belief without trust is meaningless

Truth is, "faith" isn't magic and it certainly isn't blind. Faith simply means "trust", meaning we see His hands at work and have faith (trust) that he will continue to do the same. As we mature our faith grows progressively stronger as we see more and more of his trust worthyness. So, IF there is such a God, it should be obvious that He has every right to "judge" you and everyone else as he sees fit.

I think you are looking through the wrong end of life's telescope. It's a mistake to see God as someone who is - maybe? - a slightly bigger human who really ought to give your ideas a fair consideration when making his plans. But nothing you think is unique in history and God hasn't yet asked any man what he should do about anything.

You're badly misunderstood the two most critical things about God's coming judgements.

First and foremost, his coming "judgement" won't about heaven or hell for us, we each make that choice for ourselves (John 3:16-17).

God is no tyrant. Suggesting he may be "unfair" to you is foolish. You have the same basic information as the rest of us and God gives you total freedom to live as you wish. He simply lays it all before you and lets you make your own choice about who is right and who is wrong.

Quit majoring on minors, quit agonizing over accounts of the days of creation, the flood, feeding with fishes, etc., and focus on Jesus himself. IF you choose to reject him and his agonizing blood bought and freely offered gift of eternity in God's heaven you have, by a binary default, chosen to live eternally separated from Him. And that ain't cool! ;)

You know the rules, you've been warned. You can't rightly say God has done you wrong when he simply lets you live with the results of your own decisions.

Second, about rewards or punishments in the after life; what God WILL judge you for is how you have lived. Your level of eternal punishment will be determined by how bad you've been and how far reaching the effects of your harm goes; you will get the punishment you've earned, nothing more or less. And, for what it's worth, the saved, i.e., those who have trusted to follow Christ, will participate in making the Great White Throne judgement of your after life.

None of this is a secret, it's all in the Book.

[EDG]

Poor guy. You believe your own preaching.
As far as being in the book. It is just an old book of goat herders tales and nothing more.
It contains not one bit of information necessary to life and you cannot provide evidence to the contrary.
Most of the current population of the planet, all of the population of the planet prior to say 20AD and most of the population in the future will get along fine without the slightest influence of your simple beliefs.

Say where did Mrs Cain come from?
Quote
"It frightens me to think of the state of learning in the world if everyone had your driving curiosity."

Try a little thought without the limits of your religious barriers.
What will happen in 500, 5000 or 50,000 years?
Here is what will happen. Science and scientists will know way more than they do now and may have some answers about the universe and life. Given time they will know more than they do now. It is the nature of science that man keeps looking for answers.
Your bible and your faith cannot change. Both will be the same in the years to come and cannot offer a bit more then than now which is essentially NOTHING.
Say if man lasts another 100,000 years you do realize that you are stuck with the same old bible and the same old bible tales for another 100,000 years.
In the mean time man will know much more about the universe and will have passed the bible into antiquity along with other generally useless old artifacts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GEb9r8aqVQ




WHAT? IF there is a God and if he doesn't let you get your way then you think he's not much of a god? Goodness man, there's more than a little bit of arrogance in there! Look around you, the evidence of God is observable. Faith isn't stupid. Faith is only blind if the seeker refuses to see and no one can "see" with his eyes squeezed shut. And blind professions of belief without trust is meaningless

Truth is, "faith" isn't magic and it certainly isn't blind. Faith simply means "trust", meaning we see His hands at work and have faith (trust) that he will continue to do the same. As we mature our faith grows progressively stronger as we see more and more of his trust worthyness. So, IF there is such a God, it should be obvious that He has every right to "judge" you and everyone else as he sees fit.

I think you are looking through the wrong end of life's telescope. It's a mistake to see God as someone who is - maybe? - a slightly bigger human who really ought to give your ideas a fair consideration when making his plans. But nothing you think is unique in history and God hasn't yet asked any man what he should do about anything.

You're badly misunderstood the two most critical things about God's coming judgements.

First and foremost, his coming "judgement" won't about heaven or hell for us, we each make that choice for ourselves (John 3:16-17).

God is no tyrant. Suggesting he may be "unfair" to you is foolish. You have the same basic information as the rest of us and God gives you total freedom to live as you wish. He simply lays it all before you and lets you make your own choice about who is right and who is wrong.

Quit majoring on minors, quit agonizing over accounts of the days of creation, the flood, feeding with fishes, etc., and focus on Jesus himself. IF you choose to reject him and his agonizing blood bought and freely offered gift of eternity in God's heaven you have, by a binary default, chosen to live eternally separated from Him. And that ain't cool! ;)

You know the rules, you've been warned. You can't rightly say God has done you wrong when he simply lets you live with the results of your own decisions.

Second, about rewards or punishments in the after life; what God WILL judge you for is how you have lived. Your level of eternal punishment will be determined by how bad you've been and how far reaching the effects of your harm goes; you will get the punishment you've earned, nothing more or less. And, for what it's worth, the saved, i.e., those who have trusted to follow Christ, will participate in making the Great White Throne judgement of your after life.

None of this is a secret, it's all in the Book.

[1hole]

Poor guy. You believe your own preaching.
Now, with THAT announcement, you finally get something I've posted RIGHT! :)

[EDG]

Notice too that you are not answering any questions posed you are only offering a quip of no substance.
The problem is no one listens to your nonsensical arguments because they are not based on any reasonable logic. In other words you are only making sense to yourself. If you cannot persuade others then all your preaching is wasted...


Now, with THAT announcement, you finally get something I've posted RIGHT! :)

[Blackwater]

I will be blunt:

Can you through Scripture claim with confidence to know God’s true nature? Please cite scripture!

If your belief if based on some personal experience, then how can you expect others to get on board?

Gee whiz, T McD! Those scriptures would be from Genesis 1:1 all the way to the end of Revelations! I'm not about to post all that! And what makes you think the proof of MY personal beliefs/convictions must be supported by scripture? And anyway, my beliefs/convictions are NOT anchored in scripture. They're anchored in having had the experience of some sort of portal opening to another realm, and having Christ extend His hand to me, and my accepting it. The scriptures just provide edification. That's all. So no scripture would be sufficient, but all of them together form a very powerful indication of His nature ..... if you'd read them, and seriously and humbly read them. It's all up to you, my friend, and I wish you well. Those that come to faith after a period such as yours make some of the finest Christians that can possibly be. One of the best sermons I've ever heard was preached by an ex-moonshiner. He was as humble as anyone you'll ever meet, and very joyous in nature. He chewed tobacco, and had a red bandana to wipe the corners of his mouth with when needed. This man had spent considerable time in his life disbelieving and making moonshine. He'd likely have killed anyone who meant to take him to jail or ruin his still! And yet, someone brought him to Christ, and his moonshining days were over, and it was of HIS volition that he did this. What could cause such a man to veritably overnight change his ways, and even his occupation, but something VERY powerful! And you speak of doubt. THIS man was the king of doubters, until he had a personal experience, and that portal opened up for him. Something humbled him enough for him to see it, and the rest is history.

Maybe it will be that way for you. Just remember, when one comes to God, God casts all his sins as far away as the east is from the west, and a totally new life begins. Yes, we have to stay in these mortal bodies we now wear, but that could never prevent us from starting a whole new life. I think you know that. Just imagine, your soul will again be as white as snow, like when you were born! And it's all right there in front of you, just waiting for you to become humble enough to see it, and join in the wondrous and holy throng. The other alternative, as you know, is rather grim. But you are far more than intelligent enough to know that this warrants a closer look, and at least a few moments of real humility and sincerity, don't you? God be with you my friend. I hope you find something that leads you to that moment that you've so long sought to put off, or abandon. You'll be SO glad when it finally occurs, if you'll but simply let it.

[UKShootist]

Look around you, the evidence of God is observable.

You haven't identified any evidence. Please, share some of it. Not all for that must surely take too long, but if it's that common then quite a bit will do. Not, of course, evidence of any God at all, but of your God. Not 'evidence' that's in the book either for that will prove nothing (see below) but things that are observable.


None of this is a secret, it's all in the Book.

And there is the problem. It's all in just about every different book there is on the subject, and all different. Why can't people understand the simple fact that something written in a book is not proof of anything other than something has been written in a book. Should I read the book on Greek, Norse, Roman, or even Hindu mythology? There are such books, what do they prove?

[Blackwater]

There is an old Yorkshire saying "Believe half of what you see and nowt (nothing) of what you hear." My first response is to challenge the concept of 'belief' without foundation. By definition, an agnostic does not believe. The simple fact is, I don't know. If we can only discuss here our (your?) beliefs then this is little more than an echo chamber. I certainly do not just not want to believe but I refuse point blank to believe what I do not find credible. There is an attitude creeping in here of the pupil in class asking the teacher to explain something and who promptly gets beaten for not just learning it by rote. The cheek of wanting to actually understand.

Now, to return to the subject of "I don't know" it is my nature to try and find out. The first lesson I am instructed in amounts to "Because it says so in this book". OK, I read the book. Then I find out who wrote it, it's sources, which parts were left out, which were put in, and who decided which was which and why. The only answer can be that is is a work of man. Parts of it, indeed most of at least the New Testament may even be factual. Consider this, a thought has just occurred to me, how much weaker would the Catholic Church, the representative of Christianity for nearly two millennia, be politically if it had just concerned itself with the New Testament and the works of Jesus rather than relying upon the hellfire and damnation of the Old Testament? And it is quite certain that the Catholic Church is nothing if not political.

We are given all the evidence we ever need? I discuss such subjects with many people of all faiths and persuasions, as far as it is possible for me. Evidence then. For 32 years of my life my work, and much of my life, has been concerned with finding evidence. I was paid well to do this. I understand evidence. How many times in the course of those years do you imagine I might have listened to someone insist that I must believe them for no other reason than they say a thing is so and what's more their friends all say more or less the same story when there is not a shred of proof?

"It says so in this book", the final 'proof' people will offer. They will say that there is endless supporting evidence to prove what the book says, but this is mostly found in their book, of course. But what of the other books? Muslims will cite proofs of the Koran with the same absolutist conviction and as much, or little, 'evidence' as those citing the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, and may even be willing to die defending their beliefs.

So, how do I, who doesn't know but who would rather like to find out, choose who to believe when there are so many? When as a student I ask one who would be a teacher a question about their teachings that seem to me to have no rational basis in truth that rather than address that question I am metaphorically beaten by that teacher for questioning his teachings which much to my surprise, seems to be your current approach.

I have frequently posted the reasons for my doubts but it seems that my words become invisible in the face of the certainty of the faithful because they contradict blind faith and cannot therefore be even worth the reading. It is a fact that I will never, can never, believe the Story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as anything other than allegorical. Same goes for Noah's flood. The sheer variety of denials about the age of the Earth, dinosaur fossils etc. means I cannot give any credence at all to anything said about it by anyone seeking to prove the Biblical version.

In the face of this conflict of opinions, I cannot call it conflict of evidence, all from learned, devout, people, all disagreeing on so much, I, a mere mortal of limited intellect (as are we all) am supposed to make a leap of faith which will be nothing more than the intellectual equivalent of tossing a coin and decide to believe in one of these many options. No. It's simply not good enough.

Here is my faith, for what it's worth. IF there is a God, IF He happens to be along the lines quoted in the Bible, and IF He feels the need to judge me, then any God worthy of the name will judge me on more than if I just professed a blind faith in his existence.

UK, I always enjoy talking with you, because you're immune from temper, and you write well your thoughts. I'll try to answer your questions in the order in which you've presented them.

First off, we Christians do most certainly NOT beleive without solid foundation and intellectual and other senses that we are completely and utterly on solid ground. To think otherwise is to regard us as fools, and I'm sure you've known many in your time who were believers, and obviously weren't fools? And I'm also sure that you've heard much of the central points of the Bible, including that one MUST be "saved" if one is to share eternity in Heaven? And you've surely heard what it takes to do that. We believers now have even science on our side, and if you'd like support/proof of that, PM me and I can provide some very good sources for such proof. But the heart of the phenomena of becoming Christian, is and will always be the conversion experience. That can only come when we're humble enough to allow it to open, and hopeful enough to see it and feel it when it occurs. Obviously, you've never experienced that? And if you've never exprienced that, then you really have no basis for real discussion of it, because you simply have no frame of reference from which to view it. But if you, as you say, "don't know," then surely you have enough curiosity and discretion to at least investigate it, and the real possibility that there may well be things beyond this earth and our physical world that might possibly exist, and that could cause such events as the conversion experience. Don't you? How could anyone not investigate it seriously, unless of course they're not interested in even looking at something that might spoil their view of this finite and limited realm we now live in.

And might there be a part of us that does not die when our bodies do? If there really IS a God, and we have souls, then could we possibly never have any evidence of them? As a matter of fact, Christians have an abundance of reasons to believe. G. K. Chesterton said he had "10,000 reasons" for his own personal belief, and from having read a good number of his writings, I believe him. But there's no space here to list all the reasons I and we believe. If the Bible weren't true, how could the words from the original texts, that have recently been discovered, match almost exactly the tests of our modern Bibles? Surely there's something beyond our fallible finite world at work there, don't you think? And now that science has proven that every story in the Bible may well be true through the study of quantum science, even to include Christ's physical body passing through the physical locked door in the upper room after the crucifixion, to see His disciples, we no longer have any reason to doubt any of the stories the prophets and scribes left us. Only a will could discount them offhand now.

Seriously, if you want to know, you search, don't you? And how could you possibly consider it a "waste of time" to make a real and sincere and humble search to see if the things we believe might possibly be True, after all? But it's really up to each of us to make our OWN searches for a very life-changing and life-affirming thing that could lead to literal eternal life. But it's still up to you, and your will. I hope you find your way to a point where you can understand all these questions without any explanation from us. I really wish you well, because you're a very large believer in truth. That alone could lead you to Christ, if you simply apply it and make your own personal search. You can't find something if you're not looking for it, right? God be with you my friend, and I wish you all the best.

[Blackwater]

to me it boils down to whether belief trumps actions or actions trump belief ( or lack thereof). I struggle to understand those that find comfort in their beliefs.

The first two words of your post clearly define the reason you don't believe. "To me," clearly indicates you've been searching for God YOUR way, and not His! The way to belief is relatively narrow, but not really all that narrow. But one CANNOT find Christ if he's haughty enough to think his way is better than God's way, or enough to insist that God reveal Himself when challenged! God does NOT deal well with haughty challenges. He just leaves those totally alone. But do it the right way, by humbling yourself, and truly searching with an open mind and open heart, and you will almost certainly find it. What you choose to do with it then, is the key to the entire rest of your life at that point. You can turn away (and some do) or you can enter into the most wonderful relationship you'll ever know, and more joy than you ever realized might be possible. I hope you find your way. God be with you.

[Blackwater]

Poor guy. You believe your own preaching.
As far as being in the book. It is just an old book of goat herders tales and nothing more.
It contains not one bit of information necessary to life and you cannot provide evidence to the contrary.
Most of the current population of the planet, all of the population of the planet prior to say 20AD and most of the population in the future will get along fine without the slightest influence of your simple beliefs.

Say where did Mrs Cain come from?
Quote
"It frightens me to think of the state of learning in the world if everyone had your driving curiosity."

Try a little thought without the limits of your religious barriers.
What will happen in 500, 5000 or 50,000 years?
Here is what will happen. Science and scientists will know way more than they do now and may have some answers about the universe and life. Given time they will know more than they do now. It is the nature of science that man keeps looking for answers.
Your bible and your faith cannot change. Both will be the same in the years to come and cannot offer a bit more then than now which is essentially NOTHING.
Say if man lasts another 100,000 years you do realize that you are stuck with the same old bible and the same old bible tales for another 100,000 years.
In the mean time man will know much more about the universe and will have passed the bible into antiquity along with other generally useless old artifacts.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GEb9r8aqVQ

Wow! What an eruption of doubt and disparaging accounts of believers! If the Bible is just a "book of old goat herders' tales," then how has it transformed so many millions (billions?) of lives? How has its prophesies all come true, except the Revelations, which is prophesied yet to come? What "evidence" is it upon which you base your denial that Christ was risen from the grave? What is it that supports your view that there couldn't be another realm beyond the one we now live in, that may be vastly different from what we know here? What makes you think that there is no God, or that he has never spoken to us mortals, or that he couldn't?

You make a lot of pat statements, but never support them with anything other than "I don't believe what I have never seen for myself." You're like the ultimate "doubting Thomas." So be it. It's your life, and your soul, to do with as you please, and conduct yourself and your life any way that you choose. But to find, you must first seek, don't you? Then why have you never made a true and sincere effort to find God? Why can't you humble yourself before your much superior and more powerful God, and insist on dominating HIM instead of approaching Him much more humbly, as would befit the Supreme Deity?

Sometimes, I get the feeling you're just showing off your disbeliefs. I hope that's wrong, but it'd be hard to avoid that take as at least one possibility. Are you here to learn and consider others' views and beliefs/convictions, or are you merely here to disrupt, or try to? Mostly, we believers have dealt with you and all other believers in a very courteous manner, but there seems to be a very hard edge on most of your posts, as if you were spitefully challenging us to change you, rather than letting you change your own self, so that you might actually find a way to open that portal I've described here a number of times now.

But it's your life, and your soul, and it's up to you what to do with it. But seriously, if there IS a real God, and a Heaven and Hell, do you seriously expect Him to allow one with your attitude into Heaven? He can't. It wouldn't be Heaven any more if He did. So there's really no other available place for those who mock and taunt and try to challenge God, and that's Hell, and it's for all eternity with no end. It seriously pains me that any man should choose that route. But they have that right, given to them by God himself, and no man can change or minimize that one iota. So all I can do, is try my best to reason with you, and wish you well. God be with you. All that mocking will be thrown as far away as the east is from the west when and if you come to belief, and commitment. What a joyous day that will be for all. Even the angels in Heaven rejoice when a man like you comes to them!

[UKShootist]

And what makes you think the proof of MY personal beliefs/convictions must be supported by scripture? And anyway, my beliefs/convictions are NOT anchored in scripture. They're anchored in having had the experience of some sort of portal opening to another realm, and having Christ extend His hand to me, and my accepting it.

And there you prove my point. My statement about "It says so in this book" is perhaps not quite correct. I should perhaps have said "Because of what I think it says in this book."

You speak of your moonshiner as virtuous, and no doubt he was. Many people profess hearing God. One such was a man named Peter Sutcliffe. otherwise known as the Yorkshire Ripper, who murdered 13 woman and attempted to murder seven others on the orders of God, so he believed. That's what the voice said anyhow. Not so good but completely sincere as any preacher at least.

So, me, as a seeker of truth, who do I ask? You, or another Christian who happens to believe differently from you? This assuming I limit myself to enquiring about Christianity. I might ask help from a devout Muslim and I have met quite a few who seem to be very good people indeed, in fact I am certain they are. If I ask a hundred different Christians about this I am likely to receive about a hundred and ten different answers. Catholics? Presbyterians? Seventh Day Adventists? Quakers? Church of England? Eastern Orthodox? Baptists? Methodists? Anabaptists? Mennonites? Amish? Pentecostalists? Mormons? Who do I follow? Tell me which one is right and then tell me why all the others are wrong? quickly now, because my soul appears to be at hazard. Oddly enough I suspect I would receive more consistent answers at least from Muslims. An interesting thought but they would certainly not convince me.

The next advice, from those professing to be Christians at least, is for me to read the Bible, which I have, and to open my heart to God and or Jesus, which I have with all sincerity. Few people are more sincere that patients in the Coronary Care Unit! All this to no good effect. When it comes to saving my soul it appears that the game is rigged. No wonder I prefer my own philosophy.

[Blackwater]

Notice too that you are not answering any questions posed you are only offering a quip of no substance.
The problem is no one listens to your nonsensical arguments because they are not based on any reasonable logic. In other words you are only making sense to yourself. If you cannot persuade others then all your preaching is wasted...

Gee whiz, EDG! You keep going further and further off the ledge, and getting more and more spiteful and accusative! And all without the least reason for it, too! You're really getting tiring. If you don't want, and have no intention, of ever really making a serious search for truth, and dismiss every effort on your behalf, then so be it. You can always have your way in your life, and that's guaranteed by God himself! So no man can change one iota of your beliefs, or desires to belief. Have it your way, as they say at Burger King. But don't for a second stand there and cast aspersions and mock belief and believers! You reveal yourself to be a simple ongoing malcontent, that has no intention of really listening to anyone or anything, except that and those which support your haughty and spiteful beliefs.

It's always sad to meet someone like you, but you are definitely not alone. Nobody here can man-handle you, and MAKE you believe. You must believe as you wish, for your own sake, or whatever reason you choose. And if you think, or are depending, on anyone or everyone here to screw your head off and pour it all into you, you're barking up a very empty tree, sir! WE are not responsible for ANYTHING you think, do or feel. That's YOUR job, and if you choose to do or not do it, then that's how it'll be for you. But nothing you'll ever do, nor all the efforts since the resurrection, can ever change even the least particle of what we Christians know to be true and valid and our promise to the end. You can't take anyone away from belief. And all pretensions and efforts toward that view are all in vain. You really ought to see a good psychological counselor to help you work out some of your resentments and spite. It'd make your life so very much more interesting and joyful and satisfying. You'll never find satisfaction trying to destroy a believer's faith. If you did, it wouldn't be true faith that he had to start with! But I really don't think you care much about that. I believe all you care about is dominating God, and casting aspersions toward anything and anybody that counters any of your willful "beliefs." They're not very promising tenets to base a good, satisfying life on.

[EDG]

I have never observed any one that was transformed other than in their imaginations. I do not take your word for it.
Before and after they are the same old person. You make many assertions yet none are backed up as if I am stupid enough to merely take your word for it just because you say so or just because the bible says so. There is no prophesy that I have witnessed that has come true. Just as you cannot prove that Christ ever rose from the grave. You make those statements as if they are true yet your claims could not pass the smell test in a court of law.
From my perspective I must have proof. I do not accept anything based upon your word and your bible.
You are the one with the imagination based faith. I require facts. You make claims therefore the burden is on you to provide the proof. Faith does not get the job done. As we say in engineering "in god we trust all others must bring data". Since you are not god your statements mean very little.

Of course you have to play the scary bogey man card since that is the foundation of most religions and faiths. That is how the game works. God gets to control your life if he provides you with the insurance policy that guarantees you a safe cozy eternity. It is all about the ROI that you seem to think will eventually pay off. If you were not greedy and did not care about eternity you would have no motivation to listen to your imaginary friend in the sky would you?


Wow! What an eruption of doubt and disparaging accounts of believers! If the Bible is just a "book of old goat herders' tales," then how has it transformed so many millions (billions?) of lives? How has its prophesies all come true, except the Revelations, which is prophesied yet to come? What "evidence" is it upon which you base your denial that Christ was risen from the grave? What is it that supports your view that there couldn't be another realm beyond the one we now live in, that may be vastly different from what we know here? What makes you think that there is no God, or that he has never spoken to us mortals, or that he couldn't?

You make a lot of pat statements, but never support them with anything other than "I don't believe what I have never seen for myself." You're like the ultimate "doubting Thomas." So be it. It's your life, and your soul, to do with as you please, and conduct yourself and your life any way that you choose. But to find, you must first seek, don't you? Then why have you never made a true and sincere effort to find God? Why can't you humble yourself before your much superior and more powerful God, and insist on dominating HIM instead of approaching Him much more humbly, as would befit the Supreme Deity?

Sometimes, I get the feeling you're just showing off your disbeliefs. I hope that's wrong, but it'd be hard to avoid that take as at least one possibility. Are you here to learn and consider others' views and beliefs/convictions, or are you merely here to disrupt, or try to? Mostly, we believers have dealt with you and all other believers in a very courteous manner, but there seems to be a very hard edge on most of your posts, as if you were spitefully challenging us to change you, rather than letting you change your own self, so that you might actually find a way to open that portal I've described here a number of times now.

But it's your life, and your soul, and it's up to you what to do with it. But seriously, if there IS a real God, and a Heaven and Hell, do you seriously expect Him to allow one with your attitude into Heaven? He can't. It wouldn't be Heaven any more if He did. So there's really no other available place for those who mock and taunt and try to challenge God, and that's Hell, and it's for all eternity with no end. It seriously pains me that any man should choose that route. But they have that right, given to them by God himself, and no man can change or minimize that one iota. So all I can do, is try my best to reason with you, and wish you well. God be with you. All that mocking will be thrown as far away as the east is from the west when and if you come to belief, and commitment. What a joyous day that will be for all. Even the angels in Heaven rejoice when a man like you comes to them!

[Blackwater]

Notice too that you are not answering any questions posed you are only offering a quip of no substance.
The problem is no one listens to your nonsensical arguments because they are not based on any reasonable logic. In other words you are only making sense to yourself. If you cannot persuade others then all your preaching is wasted...

On the contrary, sir! Our beliefs are based on EVERY reason and logic! EVERY one! We don't pick and choose our "reasons." We look at ALL the evidence - and don't turn away from things we find simply because we don't like them, or that they don't support what we WANT to believe. We are humble enough to accept what we find, without culling anything. And we've listened to faithless non-believers like you for millenea now, and we've known MUCH better than to limit ourselves so severely as you do. It's as plain and clear as anything in this world could possibly be! But you don't care. You're determined to "believe" what you wish, and so be it. Nobody here could, much less would, change your mind about anything. That's your duty, and yours alone. Not ours. We will not pay for your mistakes. Only you can do that. So take your venom and spite and hatred, and leave this place to folks who are seriously interested in finding deeper knowledge and inspiration here, as was the original intent here. You're just a nasty interloper who is determined to destroy, and not to ever build anything, and we don't need that kind here. You'll find no pleasure here, only anger and spite and affronts to your ridiculous beliefs, and your inability to support them beyond the simplest things, like "I don't believe anything I can't see, and I believe any god ought to act like I think he should, and not as how God and Christ do it."

Do you have no more personal character, than to behave and post as you have here? If you really wanted to learn anything, anything at all, you'd conduct yourself much differently from the way you conduct yourself at present. All we've ever done was try to show you the counter arguments to yours. That's all. That's all that's supposed to happen here. But you turn it, or try to, into a contest, and that's not what this place is all about. Believe or not. It's up to you. Search or settle into the lap of whatever you wish. It's up to you. But it's self evident that those who refuse to seek, can never find, isn't it? God be with you.

[AnthonyB]

I have read parts of this thread and learned a lot. The difference between agnostic and believer in my mind comes down to faith. I have none. I watched my wife die slowly. That killed any thought of an omniscient and omnipotent being watching over us. I taught history at a major institution and know that every culture save the Chinese has a creation myth. IMO, these are all stories to help us with our fear of the dark.

[Blackwater]

You haven't identified any evidence. Please, share some of it. Not all for that must surely take too long, but if it's that common then quite a bit will do. Not, of course, evidence of any God at all, but of your God. Not 'evidence' that's in the book either for that will prove nothing (see below) but things that are observable.





And there is the problem. It's all in just about every different book there is on the subject, and all different. Why can't people understand the simple fact that something written in a book is not proof of anything other than something has been written in a book. Should I read the book on Greek, Norse, Roman, or even Hindu mythology? There are such books, what do they prove?

UK, non-believers always ask for evidence, when it really is all around us, every day of the week. They just don't recognize it. And as to the Book, first you ask for evidence, and then say you won't believe anything that comes from a book. Actually, that's not entirely a bad view. I don't believe anyone can truly come to Christ just from reading the Book. One has to have that personal experience with Him, where it's as if a portal opens up into a realm, where Jesus stands, with those wounds in his outstretched hands, and bid you come to Him. Lacking that, one can WANT to believe, or anything else, but once one has that experience, it'll never cease to amaze and humble us. And we couldn't forget it if we wanted to.

However, it IS a searching process. If we don't search, and consider, we can't find, or enjoy, can we? Most who don't belief simply don't want to, or have no stomach for a serious search. Either way, they'll never know the conversion experience. They simply can't. They haven't completed the requirements which enable us to understand it, as it appears. But anyone CAN have this experience. It all depends on whether they're really seeking it, or at least investigating the possibility. And all that's necessary is a humble spirit, and an open mind and heart. It's amazing to me that so many today are so averse to even a search!

Good - God equals 0. It's really as simple as that. A man could act morally and ethically all his life, and yet, if he never spent any time even searching with an open heart and mind, then how could he be fit for Heaven, which is the largest part of the reasons for belief? He'd be as out of place as the proverbial "***** in church," wouldn't he? So is it so evil and un-understandable what happens to him when he dies??? Our lives are to try and make us fit for Heaven, even with all our obvious flaws and faults and weaknesses. If God can grant us eternal life, then how is it so impossible to believe that He can forgive us all these faults, and "make us white as snow" again? If God is truly God, does He not deserve, merit and shouldn't He demand at least some smidgen of reverence and respect? Why should he not keep Heaven spotlessly clean? Isn't that why He fogives us, to make us fit for Heaven??? How can you not see these things???

Edit: And as to equating the Bible with any other book written on the subject of, or the principal text of, any other religion is far more than just comparing apples to oranges. Our Bible is the only one that consistently has been tried and found valid. All the prophesies are one example. And all other parts and principles of the stories in the Bible have now been proven by quantum physics and other science to have been imminently possible, even to the point of having Christ's physical body pass through the locked door in the upper room after the crucifixion! So if you don't want to believe, then don't. Plain and simple. But it is FAR from rational or valid to think we Christians have no substantial and well established reasons for our beliefs. Our beliefs are FAR more rational than those of the disbelievers, how ever much those like to deny that. No Christian can make a non-believer see what they don't want to see. And simply denying things, does NOT destroy them, or affect them one whit. Truth is like the monolith in the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey." It's just there, and it doesn't change, and never will. But those "reasons" of the deniers WILL one day, all pass away, and be gone forever. What more reason could anyone have for beginning a real and true search of discovery for what it is that we believers have that you don't currently have? Do you simply not want to find it? If so, so be it. If you simply want to continue with whatever temptations and sins you currently enjoy, and don't want anything interfering with them, then you decide that. But make no mistake. "Karma," or whatever you wish to term it, will one day bring from you a price for your choices of that type. How can anyone not believe in God? He is so very apparent, if one simply wishes to see things as they truly are, and not as we want to see and define them. God's creations are immaculate! Ours? Let's just say we can build nothing that lasts forever. He can. What a difference that is!!!

[EDG]

My interpretation/opinion/logical deduction is the various creation myths helps man cope with his fear and knowledge of the 100% certainty of death.


I have read parts of this thread and learned a lot. The difference between agnostic and believer in my mind comes down to faith. I have none. I watched my wife die slowly. That killed any thought of an omniscient and omnipotent being watching over us. I taught history at a major institution and know that every culture save the Chinese has a creation myth. IMO, these are all stories to help us with our fear of the dark.

[UKShootist]

UK, I always enjoy talking with you, because you're immune from temper, and you write well your thoughts.

Well, I've got to tell you, to (mis)quote the Duke of Wellington, it's been a damned close run thing at times. [smilie=b: :lol:

[Blackwater]

Anthony, my heart breaks for you. But God made each of us, and only He has the right to take us Home whenever He feels like it, or has some reason to do that. He has promised us that He will never forsake us, and He does that perfectly and always for those who believe in and trust Him. If your view of God is a big depository for all your desires, then no, He has never been a god of that sort. He's a parent, and when we're headed in a wrong direction, He curbs us, and challenges us. It's His only real way to discipline us, and if there's ever been a mammal that needed constant correction, it's man. We may not SEE the errors in our lives, or their true importance and criticality, but that doesn't mean they're not there. And taking someone from us isn't necessarily a "punishment," either. What right have we, the subordinate creature, to demand our way from a real and all powerful God? What right have we to always know His reasoning, or purposes? We don't have those rights. We CAN explore the things that He might have in mind, and maybe even settle on a reason for what happens. But we'll never have the right to expect of Him all the things we WANT or desire. Sometimes, He wants to give a person or group, some reason to believe, and something that might curb them from working their way into the fire. Is he wrong to do that in your mind? And sometimes, to provide that example, we or someone we love that's very close to us, has to provide that example. Since He made us, doesn't He have that right to use us in order to achieve His perfect plan and will? You don't say how her death affected anyone else. Is it possible that someone, or several people, were reminded of the brevity and impermanence of our life here, and the promise of eternal life if we but do a few simple things??? Why don't you believe that you'll be reunited with her one day in Heaven??? We all lose those close to us, and know the sorrow of that. But if you thought of yourself as a believer before, and then lost it, you were never really a true believer to start with. Faith can overcome anything, and any amount of adversity and pain. Just look at the story of Job, and all he went through, mostly just to prove to all of us that our lots aren't nearly as bad as we may like to think, and that Christ does indeed provide us with all the support we need, if we'll simply allow Him to do that, and enter into our lives.

God is not, and never will be, the grantor of all our wishes, even the biggest of them. He is our Father and Lord, and has certain rights, plans and intentions, and all he really has to use in our world, to achieve His perfect will, is US! So, he uses us, and sometimes, in ways we initially consider harsh or punitive. But He never puts a rock in our path without providing a way around it. It's just up to us to see these things, and to keep our faith, and know He is always Lord. Even amid our greatest sorrows. God be with you my friend. There is more solace and contentment in Him than you have yet ever realized.

[T_McD]

Gee whiz, T McD! Those scriptures would be from Genesis 1:1 all the way to the end of Revelations! I'm not about to post all that! And what makes you think the proof of MY personal beliefs/convictions must be supported by scripture? And anyway, my beliefs/convictions are NOT anchored in scripture. They're anchored in having had the experience of some sort of portal opening to another realm, and having Christ extend His hand to me, and my accepting it. The scriptures just provide edification. That's all. So no scripture would be sufficient, but all of them together form a very powerful indication of His nature ..... if you'd read them, and seriously and humbly read them. It's all up to you, my friend, and I wish you well. Those that come to faith after a period such as yours make some of the finest Christians that can possibly be. One of the best sermons I've ever heard was preached by an ex-moonshiner. He was as humble as anyone you'll ever meet, and very joyous in nature. He chewed tobacco, and had a red bandana to wipe the corners of his mouth with when needed. This man had spent considerable time in his life disbelieving and making moonshine. He'd likely have killed anyone who meant to take him to jail or ruin his still! And yet, someone brought him to Christ, and his moonshining days were over, and it was of HIS volition that he did this. What could cause such a man to veritably overnight change his ways, and even his occupation, but something VERY powerful! And you speak of doubt. THIS man was the king of doubters, until he had a personal experience, and that portal opened up for him. Something humbled him enough for him to see it, and the rest is history.

Maybe it will be that way for you. Just remember, when one comes to God, God casts all his sins as far away as the east is from the west, and a totally new life begins. Yes, we have to stay in these mortal bodies we now wear, but that could never prevent us from starting a whole new life. I think you know that. Just imagine, your soul will again be as white as snow, like when you were born! And it's all right there in front of you, just waiting for you to become humble enough to see it, and join in the wondrous and holy throng. The other alternative, as you know, is rather grim. But you are far more than intelligent enough to know that this warrants a closer look, and at least a few moments of real humility and sincerity, don't you? God be with you my friend. I hope you find something that leads you to that moment that you've so long sought to put off, or abandon. You'll be SO glad when it finally occurs, if you'll but simply let it.

That’s all I needed. We cannot have a valid discussion based your personal out of body “experience”.

[Blackwater]

Well DUH!!! Yep. We all die, and as one who's been very very close to dying a time or two, let me say that nothing can be more edifying and motivating than that. Recently had a heart attack. But I never lost my faith, nor the joy of being a Christian. It's all in the attitude, EDG, and yours obviously isn't suited to that sort of satisfaction. You impress me as one who's just not destined to ever be satisfied, or truly edified, because you simply don't want to be satisfied. Well, let me just clue you in that if you became a Christian, you'd be in BIG trouble, because Christians become the most satisfied people the world can know. Once one matures in Christianity, something that doesn't come overnight or easily, usually, we become very satisfied with whatever we have ... and don't have.

And to us, death is not some "punishment" or something to fear, it's just a transformation, and one that promises us an eternity with our Lord in Heaven, where there's no dissension as there often is here. There'll be no pain, no sorrow, and everyone will love everyone else, and praise God for it, and because it's due Him.

You can mockingly declare whatever you wish as our motivation, and see us as cringing liars, grasping desperately at "goat herders' tales" if you wish, but that doesn't change what it truly is one whit. It just shows how averse to belief and believers you truly are. That's all. But in spite of all that, I wish you well anyway, and sincerely so. When and if you ever come to light, it will be a super glorious day!

[EDG]

Quoting Blackwater

"And anyway, my beliefs/convictions are NOT anchored in scripture. They're anchored in having had the experience of some sort of portal opening to another realm, and having Christ extend His hand to me, and my accepting it. The scriptures just provide edification. "

I was once mistaken for "Big Foot" by a bunch of drunken high school class mates. Their imaginations were just as real as yours. Neither story is believable. I know for a fact that I am NOT Big Foot....I know for a fact you cannot prove yours.

[Blackwater]

Well, I've got to tell you, to (mis)quote the Duke of Wellington, it's been a damned close run thing at times. [smilie=b: :lol:


:drinks::drinks::drinks: It's always a pleasure to talk with someone who's capable of intelligent thought and discourse. I learn from most of them. All I wish for right now, is for you to - however briefly - just lay down all your ego and desires, and forget all the accomplishments I sense you have under your belt, and just consider the possibility that there really IS something beyond what we know here, and that God just might be real, and exactly like our Bible describes it. I'm now reading a book on the other 4 biggest religions of the world, and it's very interesting. Each one contradicts itself very solidly and inescapably at some point. None has a Savior that has conquered death, and risen bodily from the grave. And there are many other things that none of those other religions or faiths have, that we Christians have, and have the promise of. Buddhism, for instance, promises only that one might eventually, after much self denial and aceticism of all types, reach a state of "Nirvanna," which is simply described by its most ardent and advanced adherents, as "nothingness." So, when we die, that's it - the end of everything, including any sort of being! What do people find in that that's appealing? It's self-denyine, and life denying! Hinduism doesn't really offer anything most would be interested in, either, even to include an existence after this one. And it also seems to be a smorgasboard of a religion, where one can pick and choose what they will adhere to, and what they'll ignore. That's not much of a religion either!

I want a religion that promises me something substantial, and hopefully, everlasting, so this soul of mine can grow and mature even more than it has here. That's what Christianity, but one doesn't come to belief simply by wanting it. We have to have REASONS for that, and as CHristians, we have more than could ever be posted here. But that's all for you to discover, and most pleasurably so, as you begin and make your own search for reasons to believe. All you need is a humble spirit, and an open heart, and you will find all the reasons you could ever want or need. But you have to find them for yourself. Nobody can do it for you. Just you and you alone, if you're so motivated. But if not so motivated, you can continue as you are, and wonder if maybe ..... just maybe ..... you're missing something that's far more than just worth while, but life changing, life affirming, and more joyous than you ever imagined it could be.

You're obviously a very stubborn man, too. That's good, if you let it be. I'm about as stubborn as a mule with a burr under his blanket, and an empty stomach to boot. So I well know the advantages and disadvantages of being unmoved unless reason is given for it. Myself, I've always believed, for as long as I can remember. Church just drew the edges around what I knew, and filled in blanks for me as I went along. So I don't and can't know why people disbelieve. I simply can't understand it. I've known the reasons for my belief for decades - so long that I now pretty much take them for granted. But if you'll make your own search, you'll find those same reasons, and you'll be perfectly satisfied with them because not believing just seems impossible from that point onward. I promise you, a real and sincere search, with an open heart, will eventually lead you to Christ, if you just make that search in earnest, and humbly, and with an open heart and mind. And you'll NEVER regret making it, either, but you'll be so very, very thankful that you finally discovered and accepted what has no price in all the world. You will always be rich thereafter, no matter how much money you have, or don't have. You'll always be satisfied, whether you're in the midst of sorrow or joy. Yes, we'll have times when we sorrow, but we'll rejoice that it can't defeat or overcome us, if we have real faith. Is that not something to aspire to??? And worth a real investigation???

[Blackwater]

Quoting Blackwater

"And anyway, my beliefs/convictions are NOT anchored in scripture. They're anchored in having had the experience of some sort of portal opening to another realm, and having Christ extend His hand to me, and my accepting it. The scriptures just provide edification. "

I was once mistaken for "Big Foot" by a bunch of drunken high school class mates. Their imaginations were just as real as yours. Neither story is believable. I know for a fact that I am NOT Big Foot....I know for a fact you cannot prove yours.

Baloney!!! You just don't WANT to admit there just MIGHT be a real God, that is just like is described in the Bible. OK. That's your right to choose to be that way. But simple denial will never dissipate or eliminate the absolutely real reasons we believe. If you don't WANT to believe, then don't. But don't tell the rest of us who do, that we're wrong, or stupid, or willful, or don't have any reasons for our beliefs, and that they're not substantial and/or proven. That's a fool's errand, EDG, and I believe you to be far better than that. Just because you don't believe doesn't make you stupid. It just shows that you don't WANT to believe, so ..... you don't. Again, that's OK with me, and it wouldn't matter if it wasn't. Once again, I bid you farewell, and may God be with you.

[UKShootist]

It's always a pleasure to talk with someone who's capable of intelligent thought and discourse. I learn from most of them. All I wish for right now, is for you to - however briefly - just lay down all your ego and desires, and forget all the accomplishments I sense you have under your belt, and just consider the possibility that there really IS something beyond what we know here, and that God just might be real, and exactly like our Bible describes it.

I cannot consider such a possibility without considering it's equal and opposite.



I'm now reading a book on the other 4 biggest religions of the world, and it's very interesting. Each one contradicts itself very solidly and inescapably at some point. None has a Savior that has conquered death, and risen bodily from the grave. And there are many other things that none of those other religions or faiths have, that we Christians have, and have the promise of. Buddhism, for instance, promises only that one might eventually, after much self denial and aceticism of all types, reach a state of "Nirvanna," which is simply described by its most ardent and advanced adherents, as "nothingness." So, when we die, that's it - the end of everything, including any sort of being! What do people find in that that's appealing? It's self-denyine, and life denying!

Nirvana nothing? Not hardly. I think that your suggestion is one often heard among Christians who dare not face the truth that another quasi religious philosophy bears some potential for truth. Personally, I do not regard Buddhism as a religion although some sects have made it so. I consider it more of a philosophy of life. Christians consider the search for the truth as an option. A Buddhist, particularly a Zen Buddhist, has no option but to seek the truth though constant rebirths. It's like a trip to the top of a mountain. Everyone is going there whether they like to or not, they have no option, but some take the hard way straight up, others wander around and around, up and down, until the learn their goal is the top. Not the best analogy, but it'll do for now.


Nirvana literally means “quenching” or “blowing out,” in the way that the flame of a candle is blown out. But what are we blowing out, here? Is it one’s soul, one’s ego, one’s identity? It cannot be the soul that is blown out, since Buddhism denies that any such thing exists. Nor is it the ego or one’s sense of identity that disappears, although nirvana certainly involves a radically transformed state of consciousness which is free of the obsession with “me and mine.”

What is extinguished, in fact, is the triple fire of greed, hatred, and delusion which leads to rebirth. Indeed, the simplest definition of nirvana-in-this-life is “the end of greed, hatred, and delusion”. It is clear that nirvana-in-this-life is a psychological and ethical reality. It’s a transformed state of personality characterized by peace, deep spiritual joy, compassion, and a refined and subtle awareness. Negative mental states and emotions such as doubt, worry, anxiety, and fear are absent from the enlightened mind.

Saints in many religious traditions exhibit some or all of these qualities, and ordinary people also possess them to some degree, although imperfectly developed. An enlightened person, however, such as a Buddha or an Arhat, possesses them all completely.

AFTERLIFE?

What becomes of such a person at death? It is in connection with final nirvana that problems of understanding arise. When the flame of craving is extinguished, rebirth ceases, and an enlightened person is not reborn. So what has happened to him? There is no clear answer to this question in the early sources. The Buddha said that asking about the whereabouts of “an enlightened one” after death is like asking where a flame goes when blown out.

The flame, of course, has not “gone” anywhere. It is simply the process of combustion that has ceased. Removing craving and ignorance is like taking away the oxygen and fuel which a flame needs to burn. The image of the blowing out of the flame, however, does not suggest that final nirvana is annihilation. The sources make quite clear that this would be a mistake, as would the conclusion that nirvana is the eternal existence of a personal soul.

TO QUESTION NIRVANA

The Buddha discouraged speculation about the nature of nirvana and emphasized instead the need to strive for its attainment. Those who asked speculative questions about nirvana he compared to a man wounded by poisoned arrow who, rather than pulling the arrow out, persists in asking for irrelevant information about the man who fired it, such as his name and clan, how far away he was standing, and so forth.

In keeping with this reluctance on the part of the Buddha to elaborate on the question, the early sources describe nirvana in predominantly negative terms. These range from “the absence of desire” and “the extinction of thirst” to “blowing out” and “cessation.” A smaller number of positive epithets are also found, including “the auspicious,” the good,” “purity,” peace,” “truth,” and “the further shore.”

Certain passages suggest that nirvana is a transcendent reality which is unborn, unoriginated, uncreated and unformed. It’s difficult to know what interpretation to place upon such formulations. In the last analysis the nature of final nirvana remains an enigma other than to those who experience it. What we can be sure of, however, is that it means the end of suffering and rebirth.

[UKShootist]

I want a religion that promises me something substantial, and hopefully, everlasting, so this soul of mine can grow and mature even more than it has here.

There you have it! A wish for something that you desire to be true.

Buddhism is quite capable of providing that also. For me, I want entirely the truth. If I am to die and cease to exist, so be it. In that case I would be doing nothing that countless billions of people have done before me. Hardly a big deal. If there is life after death then I will find out when I die. All I ask is, as Australians say, a 'Fair Go' and I do believe I would be more likely than not to get one. Fairer than what is offered by Christians I would say.

An interesting thought is contained in Pascal's Wager.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

All the more interesting because it pretty much applies exactly to Zen Buddhism as much as Christianity. Possibly more so.

[PerpetualStudent]

Why do you think that a supernatural law of karma and rebirth is the way despite no evidence?

[T_McD]

There you have it! A wish for something that you desire to be true.

Buddhism is quite capable of providing that also. For me, I want entirely the truth. If I am to die and cease to exist, so be it. In that case I would be doing nothing that countless billions of people have done before me. Hardly a big deal. If there is life after death then I will find out when I die. All I ask is, as Australians say, a 'Fair Go' and I do believe I would be more likely than not to get one. Fairer than what is offered by Christians I would say.

An interesting thought is contained in Pascal's Wager.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

All the more interesting because it pretty much applies exactly to Zen Buddhism as much as Christianity. Possibly more so.

It’s quite telling that this disagreement is not a new phenomena.

I will disagree with the concept of “the wager” outright, but agree with the result. There is no reason to live an amoral life. It is as I said in one of these threads, there should little difference in the actions of believers and reasoned unbelievers.

Thanks for the link.

[UKShootist]

Why do you think that a supernatural law of karma and rebirth is the way despite no evidence?

Because it has more logic and sense than the rest of them put together. There is sound evidence that both Jesus and Mohammed existed but none to contradict the possibility that they were deluded, or in the case of Mohammed, the world's biggest lying conman. Why do Mormons believe the tale that Joseph Smith told? And why might anyone equally believe the supernatural tales of the Bible?

[UKShootist]

There is no reason to live an amoral life.

That will depend upon the morals in question. I can think of some excellent reasons for certain amoral pastimes when the morals in question are, well, questionable. By way of example there are activities that might be considered perfectly moral in the Western World that will get you killed PDQ in an Islamic one.

[PerpetualStudent]

Because it has more logic and sense than the rest of them put together. The tales of the bhudda are equally fantastic and the lineage of the tales and teaching even more questionable than the transmission of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. And as you mention many of the interpretations of bhuddism are religious. None of which gets away from the fact that there is no evidence of rebirth or a cosmic law of justice. You like this worldview so you grant it a benefit you do not grant the Christian worldview. That is inconsistent.

Looking at your posts throughout this thread I am puzzled. You started off hardcore scientific atheist, then you were saying you were stoic (but one who did not feel he owed the world any duty, Marcus Aurelius would disapprove) now you claim bhuddism (but with a bellicose approach to Christianity, something a zen bhuddist would consider an attachment). You attack following a religious tradition of morals (because each religion has committed atrocities). You also attack anyone following their own personal interpretation (how can you trust an individual not to come up with a crazy and dangerous interpretation?).

Altogether this makes me think you're more interested a fight for a fight's sake than any search for truth.

[UKShootist]

The tales of the bhudda are equally fantastic and the lineage of the tales and teaching even more questionable than the transmission of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. And as you mention many of the interpretations of bhuddism are religious. None of which gets away from the fact that there is no evidence of rebirth or a cosmic law of justice. You like this worldview so you grant it a benefit you do not grant the Christian worldview. That is inconsistent.

That, and the rest of it, is a somewhat biased opinion to say the least.

However...

I give neither Buddhism nor Christianity any benefit whatsoever. You rightly say that tales of Buddha are questionable, but no more or less than tales of Christianity or any other religion. There is no evidence of rebirth etc it's true. While there is evidence that Jesus and Mohammed existed there is no evidence whatever of any miracles or divinity attributable to them. Indeed in their case any evidence would point towards paranoid schizophrenia. What Zen Buddhism has is a logic that cannot be denied, even if it turns out to be wrong. I see no logic whatever in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion. To me that gives Zen a head start. The fact that some humans have converted Buddhism to a religion and even worship him using prayer wheels that I Consider little short of insane is a failing of those humans and not of the Zen logic.



Looking at your posts throughout this thread I am puzzled. You started off hardcore scientific atheist, then you were saying you were stoic (but one who did not feel he owed the world any duty, Marcus Aurelius would disapprove)

I'm not sure about the hard core scientific atheist. More a hard core scientific agnostic. Not a stoic because I do not feel I owe the world any duty? Perhaps 42 years of serving my country and it's people as a serviceman, a police officers, and a Trading Standards enforcement officer might indicate otherwise. And I certainly didn't say I was a very good stoic.



now you claim bhuddism (but with a bellicose approach to Christianity, something a zen bhuddist would consider an attachment). You attack following a religious tradition of morals (because each religion has committed atrocities). You also attack anyone following their own personal interpretation (how can you trust an individual not to come up with a crazy and dangerous interpretation?).

Moi, bellicose? Hark who's talking. You accuse me of an aggressive attitude when all I offer are the reasons I object to statements made. For a start, if I assume that the 'Christ' in Christianity refers to Jesus then he seems like quite a decent bloke. I do object to many/most of the religious observances that some so called Christians seem to delight in, and why not? If they preach am I not entitled to answer? Why use the word 'attack' when I point out that it is impossible for an outsider to choose which Christian advice to follow? I certainly don't feel I attack anyone following their own personal interpretation, it's what I do with Buddhism after all, I merely point out that anyone's interpretation is likely to be different from anyone else and therefore lacks validity in equal measure.


Altogether this makes me think you're more interested a fight for a fight's sake than any search for truth.

Then at least you prove that you can be just as wrong as anyone else. Also, it takes two to fight, again, as you seem to want to prove for me.

[T_McD]

That will depend upon the morals in question. I can think of some excellent reasons for certain amoral pastimes when the morals in question are, well, questionable. By way of example there are activities that might be considered perfectly moral in the Western World that will get you killed PDQ in an Islamic one.

I should clarify, Following the basic moral principles of Christianity will serve you well in American society.

Love thy neighbor/golden rule, money management, plank in the eye, etc. (not an exhaustive list just what came to mind)

None of this proves the deity, but the principles are logical.

[PerpetualStudent]

I give neither Buddhism nor Christianity any benefit whatsoever.

To me that gives Zen a head start.
Right there. You give zen a headstart.

The fact that some humans have converted Buddhism to a religion and even worship him using prayer wheels that I Consider little short of insane is a failing of those humans and not of the Zen logic.. So your interpretation of zen bhuddism is the only one? Why should I choose yours to weigh in the balance instead of Mongolian bhuddism? Or the Tibetan?




I'm not sure about the hard core scientific atheist. More a hard core scientific agnostic.
I said hardcore atheist because you admitted that there is no conceivable evidence that could sway you to belief in a supernatural.


And I certainly didn't say I was a very good stoic. While you can argue that your actions conflict with your words, you stated in this thread that you did not feel you owed anyone anything and that rather the world owed you something. This is in conflict to stoic philosophy.


I certainly don't feel I attack anyone following their own personal interpretation, it's what I do with Buddhism after all, I merely point out that anyone's interpretation is likely to be different from anyone else and therefore lacks validity in equal measure. Ah, then I should dismiss your interpretation of zen bhuddism as well?


Also, it takes two to fight, again, as you seem to want to prove for me. On the contrary most of your posts have not been aimed at me. I've raised philosophical objections to certain statements and you've generally dropped those arguments because you found other posts easier to fight with. I don't see evidence of searching or reasoning in your posts. Others in the this thread have had honest discussion and searching for the core differences, I don't see that in your posts. I see mocking of other's beliefs and backpedaling from your stated beliefs as soon as they are under threat from reason.

[UKShootist]

Right there. You give zen a headstart.
So your interpretation of zen bhuddism is the only one? Why should I choose yours to weigh in the balance instead of Mongolian bhuddism? Or the Tibetan?




I said hardcore atheist because you admitted that there is no conceivable evidence that could sway you to belief in a supernatural.

While you can argue that your actions conflict with your words, you stated in this thread that you did not feel you owed anyone anything and that rather the world owed you something. This is in conflict to stoic philosophy.

Ah, then I should dismiss your interpretation of zen bhuddism as well?

On the contrary most of your posts have not been aimed at me. I've raised philosophical objections to certain statements and you've generally dropped those arguments because you found other posts easier to fight with. I don't see evidence of searching or reasoning in your posts. Others in the this thread have had honest discussion and searching for the core differences, I don't see that in your posts. I see mocking of other's beliefs and backpedaling from your stated beliefs as soon as they are under threat from reason.

And it's me that is seeking the argument. OK. Whatever. 246741

[Blackwater]

And there you prove my point. My statement about "It says so in this book" is perhaps not quite correct. I should perhaps have said "Because of what I think it says in this book."

You speak of your moonshiner as virtuous, and no doubt he was. Many people profess hearing God. One such was a man named Peter Sutcliffe. otherwise known as the Yorkshire Ripper, who murdered 13 woman and attempted to murder seven others on the orders of God, so he believed. That's what the voice said anyhow. Not so good but completely sincere as any preacher at least.

So, me, as a seeker of truth, who do I ask? You, or another Christian who happens to believe differently from you? This assuming I limit myself to enquiring about Christianity. I might ask help from a devout Muslim and I have met quite a few who seem to be very good people indeed, in fact I am certain they are. If I ask a hundred different Christians about this I am likely to receive about a hundred and ten different answers. Catholics? Presbyterians? Seventh Day Adventists? Quakers? Church of England? Eastern Orthodox? Baptists? Methodists? Anabaptists? Mennonites? Amish? Pentecostalists? Mormons? Who do I follow? Tell me which one is right and then tell me why all the others are wrong? quickly now, because my soul appears to be at hazard. Oddly enough I suspect I would receive more consistent answers at least from Muslims. An interesting thought but they would certainly not convince me.

The next advice, from those professing to be Christians at least, is for me to read the Bible, which I have, and to open my heart to God and or Jesus, which I have with all sincerity. Few people are more sincere that patients in the Coronary Care Unit! All this to no good effect. When it comes to saving my soul it appears that the game is rigged. No wonder I prefer my own philosophy.

If you want to equate Christianity with the mind of a serial killer, then you have no desire nor intent to understand real faith, and we cannot help you or provide any service to you except as an outlet for your mischievous desire to provoke. This is not only an insult, but the most unholy and pretentious of asperions among them! If you don't want to know, don't, and don't bother those who do, or want to find further edification beyond that which they already possess.

That was wholly and completely facetious, and not addressed toward any good or worthy goal. If that's how you intend to work here, then we can play that game too. If you wish, let the games begin. Or let's gather ourselves here for a worthy purpose, and discuss these matters of faith without such utter insults. You get to choose.

[UKShootist]

If you want to equate Christianity with the mind of a serial killer, then you have no desire nor intent to understand real faith, and we cannot help you or provide any service to you except as an outlet for your mischievous desire to provoke. This is not only an insult, but the most unholy and pretentious of asperions among them! If you don't want to know, don't, and don't bother those who do, or want to find further edification beyond that which they already possess.

That was wholly and completely facetious, and not addressed toward any good or worthy goal. If that's how you intend to work here, then we can play that game too. If you wish, let the games begin. Or let's gather ourselves here for a worthy purpose, and discuss these matters of faith without such utter insults. You get to choose.

An interesting, unexpected, and rather disappointing reply. I point out that a paranoid schizophrenic believes God has spoken to him and his belief is such that he is willing to murder for it. OK, he's crazy in common parlance but his belief is no less sincere than any other. I do not, have not, and will not, equate Christianity with the mind of a serial killer. You take a step way too far in that accusation.If it makes you feel better, then consider that I would place Mohammed quite firmly alongside Peter Sutcliffe in regard to conversations with God. I'm merely pointing out that hearing the voice of God is not something unique to the faithful of anyone's preferred faith. When a person tells me that God has spoken to him my first thought is of schizophrenia. If you can accept that schizophrenia exists and can cause people to believe, utterly believe mind you, that God, or someone else has spoken, is speaking, to them, then how am I to deal with a person who says the same thing but who is not formally diagnosed as schizophrenic?

The point of my post was, who do I seek advice from? If I could travel in time should I go seek advice from Pope Alexander VI? Being a Pope he had a direct line of communication with God. He was also an utterly evil depraved man addicted to his own evils. It sometimes seems to me that the last people on earth that might help me find the road to truth about spiritual matters are the faithful.

[Blackwater]

I cannot consider such a possibility without considering it's equal and opposite.




Nirvana nothing? Not hardly. I think that your suggestion is one often heard among Christians who dare not face the truth that another quasi religious philosophy bears some potential for truth. Personally, I do not regard Buddhism as a religion although some sects have made it so. I consider it more of a philosophy of life. Christians consider the search for the truth as an option. A Buddhist, particularly a Zen Buddhist, has no option but to seek the truth though constant rebirths. It's like a trip to the top of a mountain. Everyone is going there whether they like to or not, they have no option, but some take the hard way straight up, others wander around and around, up and down, until the learn their goal is the top. Not the best analogy, but it'll do for now.

Ah! That first line reveals why you can't or won't find real Truth: You cannot, or will not, seriously consider the proposition of Christ's reality, and the reality of Truth, by seeking with your "heart" (that inner "heart of hearts" that true effort is always marked by). You're only conducting an intellectual exercise, and that's all. So it's no wonder you've concluded as you have.

Howevere, had you the will and intent to REALLY seek, with all your heart and all your might and all your soul, the real and everlasting Truth, then your results would almost surely be vastly different from the results you've obtained so far. And if the only satisfaction you've ever sought is mere "intellectual" satisfaction, then you've not even been barking up the right tree.

Now as to nirvanna not being "nothingness," then why do so many of its adherents declare otherwise? Buddha declared rather clearly and unmistakably that he believed it was our attachments to "things" and ideas and emotional needs is what caused all of man's suffering, up to and including war and genocide. Gautama lived in a time of anarchy and upheaval - of murder and mass executions - and his efforts were merely to provide a system of thought and meditation that would tame all this evil, and leave the Chinese culture he lived in a pathway to becoming a place where one could live without undue fear and caution. This, Gautama saw, necessitated the complete and utter detachments of a person from ALL (again, completely) personal attachments to anything or anybody, including ideas. If that's not "nothingness," what could be? I don't know who you've been reading, but there are at least two differing schools of Buddhism, and likely many, many more personal and private beliefs, and small groups who harp on one of the strings Gautama played, to the exclusion of all others. That's just the way willful humans tend to be in any large group. But other than that difference, your description of Buddhism is pretty much spot on, at least as I've come to understand it. So we're not completely separated on this matter.

The crucial point though, is that we're supposed to be considering Christian beliefs, and whether or not they're "silly" or serious and valid. We need to return to that.

[UKShootist]

Greetings. I assume we are back on speaking terms. :)


Ah! That first line reveals why you can't or won't find real Truth: You cannot, or will not, seriously consider the proposition of Christ's reality, and the reality of Truth, by seeking with your "heart" (that inner "heart of hearts" that true effort is always marked by). You're only conducting an intellectual exercise, and that's all. So it's no wonder you've concluded as you have.

Howevere, had you the will and intent to REALLY seek, with all your heart and all your might and all your soul, the real and everlasting Truth, then your results would almost surely be vastly different from the results you've obtained so far. And if the only satisfaction you've ever sought is mere "intellectual" satisfaction, then you've not even been barking up the right tree.

IF God gave me a heart ( of the spiritual variety) then he also gave me a brain. Both are presumably intended for use.


Now as to nirvanna not being "nothingness," then why do so many of its adherents declare otherwise?

Why do so many Christian 'adherents' have different opinions about Christianity? Perhaps one of them is right. Perhaps one Buddhist is right. Perhaps that one Buddhist is me.



Buddha declared rather clearly and unmistakably that he believed it was our attachments to "things" and ideas and emotional needs is what caused all of man's suffering, up to and including war and genocide. Gautama lived in a time of anarchy and upheaval - of murder and mass executions - and his efforts were merely to provide a system of thought and meditation that would tame all this evil, and leave the Chinese culture he lived in a pathway to becoming a place where one could live without undue fear and caution. This, Gautama saw, necessitated the complete and utter detachments of a person from ALL (again, completely) personal attachments to anything or anybody, including ideas. If that's not "nothingness," what could be? I don't know who you've been reading, but there are at least two differing schools of Buddhism, and likely many, many more personal and private beliefs, and small groups who harp on one of the strings Gautama played, to the exclusion of all others. That's just the way willful humans tend to be in any large group. But other than that difference, your description of Buddhism is pretty much spot on, at least as I've come to understand it. So we're not completely separated on this matter.

The crucial point though, is that we're supposed to be considering Christian beliefs, and whether or not they're "silly" or serious and valid. We need to return to that.

OK, here's what I see as the difference. If a winning argument (discussion, idea, revelation, call it what you will) arises then I can modify, or even delete, my beliefs, such as they are, about Buddhism without trauma. This might be because they are a constant work in progress. Indeed, I believe that to be the essence of Zen, the journey to the truth, which allows me consider all options (including schizophrenia). How might you cope if your belief was overturned by some such overwhelming discussion, idea, revelation, etc.?

But, to Christian beliefs, whether or not they are silly, serious or valid. I consider that much of the New Testament is certainly not silly. There is much nobility of spirit contained within it along with significant facts. Not all of it by any means, but probably a majority. In the Old Testament there may be parts that have some corroboration but for the most part I consider them allegorical at best, and mythological tales at worst. If anything is silly there it is the belief held by some that any of the more ridiculous tales have any basis in truth. That historians and archeologists might have evidence that, for instance, Jerusalem existed (let's keep it easy) is no proof of what happened there. Likewise with Nazareth. Unless of course you accept that the existence of the Temple of Aphrodite is proof that She once existed.

BTW, I believe Buddha spent most of his life in India. From memory I don't recall him travelling in China.

[Blackwater]

That’s all I needed. We cannot have a valid discussion based your personal out of body “experience”.

Why not? Because you can't accept my report of it?

[Blackwater]

Quoting Blackwater

"And anyway, my beliefs/convictions are NOT anchored in scripture. They're anchored in having had the experience of some sort of portal opening to another realm, and having Christ extend His hand to me, and my accepting it. The scriptures just provide edification. "

I was once mistaken for "Big Foot" by a bunch of drunken high school class mates. Their imaginations were just as real as yours. Neither story is believable. I know for a fact that I am NOT Big Foot....I know for a fact you cannot prove yours.

Ah! So it's "imagination" if I do it, and "concrete fact" when you post a belief of yours, no matter how obviously flawed your words may be???? Interesting. Very, very interesting.

[Blackwater]

I cannot consider such a possibility without considering it's equal and opposite.




Nirvana nothing? Not hardly. I think that your suggestion is one often heard among Christians who dare not face the truth that another quasi religious philosophy bears some potential for truth. Personally, I do not regard Buddhism as a religion although some sects have made it so. I consider it more of a philosophy of life. Christians consider the search for the truth as an option. A Buddhist, particularly a Zen Buddhist, has no option but to seek the truth though constant rebirths. It's like a trip to the top of a mountain. Everyone is going there whether they like to or not, they have no option, but some take the hard way straight up, others wander around and around, up and down, until the learn their goal is the top. Not the best analogy, but it'll do for now.

UK, Buddhism is not, as are many religions, a totally uniform and polarized belief system. What you describe is one of the variants of Buddhism, but not the largest one. So OK, I'll accept your version. But I'll stick to mine when considering Buddhism as a general rule. And going back to Gautama's time itself, he NEVER made ANY pretension to being a god, and he never fully revealed just exactly what Nirvana really is. But there too, I'll take your word for it that some of his followers years later discovered what it was and wrote about that. Are we square now???

[Blackwater]

UKShootist - There you have it! A wish for something that you desire to be true.

BW: Nope. It was just a statement of the parameters I would require in order to believe in a religion.

UK: Buddhism is quite capable of providing that also.

BW: Nope. It ain't. Buddhism is and until relatively recently, never claimed that Buddha was a divine god. He grew up in a time of horrible upheavals and general disarray. His only purpose was to try to bring a generally accepted standard of behavior in order to have a more civilized society, and much (hopefully) less war and murder, etc. I'd never be satisfied with a mere "advice giver" who wasn't any higher in status than I am now. Buddha was a very astute and learned brilliant man, but that's all he ever claimed to be. Some of his followers came along much later, and tried to elevate him to the level of a god, but I'm not sure he would have appreciated or allowed something like that. He was likely much too wise, and far too humble. And BTW, he always fought his "inner demons" all his life, and was constantly falling short of his efforts to diminish his desires. Married women were one of his great temptations that he seemingly never mastered.

UK: For me, I want entirely the truth. If I am to die and cease to exist, so be it. In that case I would be doing nothing that countless billions of people have done before me. Hardly a big deal. If there is life after death then I will find out when I die. All I ask is, as Australians say, a 'Fair Go' and I do believe I would be more likely than not to get one. Fairer than what is offered by Christians I would say.

BW: Indeed. it will be as you state. And as to asking for a "Fair Go," we're all given that. Some make use of it, and some merely brush beliefs aside and rely on their own intellects to "work it all out." But if indeed, there really IS a true Heaven, a realm beyond this mortal one, then who and what decides who gets to go there? After all, let just one sinful and self-arrogant entity inside, and it wouldn't be Heaven any more, would it? The Christian God wants only those who have chosen Him, and demonstrated a real and material desire to follow Him in His Heaven. Therefore, those who do not fall into that category must needs be relegated to another realm, and the only other one in existence is hell, where the devil himself resides. That's just how it works, and nothing could be more fair, since God gave all of us the option to choose which side we'd be on. His or Satan's. And not all evil APPEARS to be evil. Much of it appears, at least at first, to be relatively mild and almost innocuous. It'll never be quite as you desire it to be, but it's very real. Too many reliable accounts to think of this as just a game. It's as deadly serious as any undertaking we can tackle in this realm.

UK: An interesting thought is contained in Pascal's Wager.

BW: I forget presently just what that is. Wanna' enlighten me and jog my memory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

All the more interesting because it pretty much applies exactly to Zen Buddhism as much as Christianity. Possibly more so.[/QUOTE]

[Blackwater]

Because it has more logic and sense than the rest of them put together. There is sound evidence that both Jesus and Mohammed existed but none to contradict the possibility that they were deluded, or in the case of Mohammed, the world's biggest lying conman. Why do Mormons believe the tale that Joseph Smith told? And why might anyone equally believe the supernatural tales of the Bible?

OK. So if that's your belief, then the stage is yours. Explain for us plebian believers just how reincarnation makes more sense than Heaven and Hell. I await your response with anticipation.

[Blackwater]

That, and the rest of it, is a somewhat biased opinion to say the least.

However...

I give neither Buddhism nor Christianity any benefit whatsoever. You rightly say that tales of Buddha are questionable, but no more or less than tales of Christianity or any other religion. There is no evidence of rebirth etc it's true. While there is evidence that Jesus and Mohammed existed there is no evidence whatever of any miracles or divinity attributable to them. Indeed in their case any evidence would point towards paranoid schizophrenia. What Zen Buddhism has is a logic that cannot be denied, even if it turns out to be wrong. I see no logic whatever in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion. To me that gives Zen a head start. The fact that some humans have converted Buddhism to a religion and even worship him using prayer wheels that I Consider little short of insane is a failing of those humans and not of the Zen logic.




I'm not sure about the hard core scientific atheist. More a hard core scientific agnostic. Not a stoic because I do not feel I owe the world any duty? Perhaps 42 years of serving my country and it's people as a serviceman, a police officers, and a Trading Standards enforcement officer might indicate otherwise. And I certainly didn't say I was a very good stoic.




Moi, bellicose? Hark who's talking. You accuse me of an aggressive attitude when all I offer are the reasons I object to statements made. For a start, if I assume that the 'Christ' in Christianity refers to Jesus then he seems like quite a decent bloke. I do object to many/most of the religious observances that some so called Christians seem to delight in, and why not? If they preach am I not entitled to answer? Why use the word 'attack' when I point out that it is impossible for an outsider to choose which Christian advice to follow? I certainly don't feel I attack anyone following their own personal interpretation, it's what I do with Buddhism after all, I merely point out that anyone's interpretation is likely to be different from anyone else and therefore lacks validity in equal measure.



Then at least you prove that you can be just as wrong as anyone else. Also, it takes two to fight, again, as you seem to want to prove for me.

Gee whiz, UK!!! None of us here owe you anything but the benefit of a doubt. But you're quickly defining yourself to not be deserving nor desirous of that benefit! You seem now to just want to parade your disbeliefs out in front of a bunch of true believers, and what purpose that could serve, other than padding your ego, is totally beyond me. Your views are piece-mealed together out of your doubts, and thus, are worth nothing - not even to your own self. So why does a man adopt such self-deprecating "philosophies" and attitudes?

I have a sense that somewhere along the line, your heart was broken, and that you've never really recovered from that. So now, you just take the opposite of whatever the established views may be, just to be contrary, and maybe to be spiteful to the Lord you once may have believed in. If that's true, then all you have to do is recognize that all of us get our hearts broken at some time or another. I lost the closest thing I'll ever have to having another son when he was killed in an auto accident not 300 yds. from my back door. He was a truly wonderful and gifted young man. He was 20 when he died. He and my son were born only a few sparse days apart. Yes, I know what a broken heart feels like, and the salty tears that one can't stop from coming and coming and coming. But sorrow need not destroy our faith. We have always known that life is delicate, and disappears in an instant. And the God who made us all has the right to take any of us home any time He pleases. If He wants a few youth for Heaven's choir, He has all the right to take them that anyone could possibly need. That's a hard truth to face, but really, not facing it is much worse.

Whatever be the source of your contrariness and egotistical positions, I sincerely hope that whatever the cause, you reconcile it before shuffling off this mortal coil. But in the end, it's all up to you, my friend. God bless you.

[Blackwater]

An interesting, unexpected, and rather disappointing reply. I point out that a paranoid schizophrenic believes God has spoken to him and his belief is such that he is willing to murder for it. OK, he's crazy in common parlance but his belief is no less sincere than any other. I do not, have not, and will not, equate Christianity with the mind of a serial killer. You take a step way too far in that accusation.If it makes you feel better, then consider that I would place Mohammed quite firmly alongside Peter Sutcliffe in regard to conversations with God. I'm merely pointing out that hearing the voice of God is not something unique to the faithful of anyone's preferred faith. When a person tells me that God has spoken to him my first thought is of schizophrenia. If you can accept that schizophrenia exists and can cause people to believe, utterly believe mind you, that God, or someone else has spoken, is speaking, to them, then how am I to deal with a person who says the same thing but who is not formally diagnosed as schizophrenic?

The point of my post was, who do I seek advice from? If I could travel in time should I go seek advice from Pope Alexander VI? Being a Pope he had a direct line of communication with God. He was also an utterly evil depraved man addicted to his own evils. It sometimes seems to me that the last people on earth that might help me find the road to truth about spiritual matters are the faithful.

Sincerity and depth of belief does NOT equate to validity of belief. Real faith is proven and reliable and consistent. That is NOT the case in your example. And the "hearing of voices" as you describe them above, is NOT the same for a Christian in a conversion experience, and that of a paranoid schizophrenic. And BTW, I have a little experience with paranoid schizophrenics. I nearly had to shoot one once. I am glad I didn't have to pull the trigger. So yeah, I know paranoid schizophrenics, and I know Christians, and they are in NO way comparable. 'Nuff said.

[Blackwater]

UKShootist: Greetings. I assume we are back on speaking terms. :)

BW: Of course!

UK: IF God gave me a heart ( of the spiritual variety) then he also gave me a brain. Both are presumably intended for use.

BW: Fine, then use them, but NOT to find ways to negate Christian belief and orthodoxy, but to find your OWN path and beliefs within the very large canopy of Christianity. Then, it would truly be YOUR faith.

UK: Why do so many Christian 'adherents' have different opinions about Christianity? Perhaps one of them is right. Perhaps one Buddhist is right. Perhaps that one Buddhist is me.

BW: Simple! Because God is a huge entity, not unlike a huge, mountain sized diamond, and each of us is given to see only a relatively small number of facets, or maybe it's that a small number of those facets move us to the degree that we become "overstimulated," and become so self-absorbed that we try to establish our own little nook within Christianity called a "sect." And Buddha NEVER claimed the status of a god. Only his disciples, some 300 years or so later, tried to establish him as a god. But other Buddhists tend to strongly reject that belief, and they compose the much larger segment of Buddhism. Real religion has a god at its center. Other belief systems are merely philosophies. That's all.
UK: OK, here's what I see as the difference. If a winning argument (discussion, idea, revelation, call it what you will) arises then I can modify, or even delete, my beliefs, such as they are, about Buddhism without trauma. This might be because they are a constant work in progress. Indeed, I believe that to be the essence of Zen, the journey to the truth, which allows me consider all options (including schizophrenia). How might you cope if your belief was overturned by some such overwhelming discussion, idea, revelation, etc.?

BW: It'll never happen. Many have claimed in the past to have "disproven" Christianity and all other religions. C. S. Lewis, after being seriously wounded in WWI, came out at the end with a big chip on his shoulder due to the things he'd seen in the war. So, he went to one of England's finer universities with the specific intent of disproving Christianity, for which he had zero respect, and disproving the validity of ANY religion. He was about as ardent and insistent an atheist as you'd ever be able to find today. Most folks' beliefs today are far too wishy-washy to be as adamant as he was about his atheism. And he was awfully proud of it, too, and proclaimed it to any who'd listen to his harangues. And yet, in his effort to disprove religion of any kind, he became a Christian, and not only that, but a Catholic to boot! But go ahead and disprove it if you can. Nothing can really shake true Faith. It's much more of a conviction based on personal experience, than it is a mere "belief."

UK: t, to Christian beliefs, whether or not they are silly, serious or valid. I consider that much of the New Testament is certainly not silly. There is much nobility of spirit contained within it along with significant facts. Not all of it by any means, but probably a majority. In the Old Testament there may be parts that have some corroboration but for the most part I consider them allegorical at best, and mythological tales at worst. If anything is silly there it is the belief held by some that any of the more ridiculous tales have any basis in truth. That historians and archeologists might have evidence that, for instance, Jerusalem existed (let's keep it easy) is no proof of what happened there. Likewise with Nazareth. Unless of course you accept that the existence of the Temple of Aphrodite is proof that She once existed.

BW: If it's proofs you want, Christianity has more of them than any other religion that has ever existed on earth. We can point to the fact that the oldest manuscripts, written many centuries before Christ, precisely match the Bible we read today. We can point to various scientific proofs, that come right up to the threshold of proving God MUST exist, and that He must be a loving and good God, much as described in the Christian Bible and its traditional beliefs. And if such a God exists, then it only makes judicious sense that worshiping Him is our wise and proper place in relation to Him. Proofs abound. They're all around you and me. The only difference is the eyes that look upon them. Some are dull and laggard. Some are bright and perceptive. Some love, while others hate. And therein lies the difference. We all must choose between Love and Hatred. I choose Love. You may choose as you please.

UK: BTW, I believe Buddha spent most of his life in India. From memory I don't recall him travelling in China.

BW: He did indeed travel to India, according to my readings, but yes, he also made it back to China before he died, IIRC. He surely has a lot of adherents these days. Maybe because they've never been really appropriately exposed to good Christian theology, or the reasons we believe. Gautama was indeed a very brilliant man! He changed a whole nation from a warring and skirmishing bunch of rag-tag miscreants, to one of the most polite cultures (eventually) that has ever existed. But that's all he ever wanted - to make folks in his little nook of the world to be courteous and kind to one another. He never aspired to be regarded as a god, but called himself a "teacher." Christ, on the other hand, shocked everyone with his claim of being one with the Father! Quite a different proposition than Buddha ever offered his followers!

[1hole]

Disbelievers frequently suggest that "sincerity" of beliefs should make all religions equal. Truth is, sincerity of anything means nothing if it's wrong.

I recall reading a short story about a Frenchman in the late 1800s (IIRC) who wanted to fly. He worked and studied until he designed a set of bird wings he could wear on his arms and, if he could get enough wind, he could fly. It all appeared so reasonable he was totally sure it would work. So, he carefully made the wings, strapped them on on the top of a tall building and jumped; they scooped up the large parts of his body with shovels. He was very sure he was right but he wasn't .... RIP.

For those who really think, there's a good message in that story!

[UKShootist]

Disbelievers frequently suggest that "sincerity" of beliefs should make all religions equal. Truth is, sincerity of anything means nothing if it's wrong.

I do not believe that to be true in the slightest. On the contrary, I believe that is absolutely NOT true. Islam is an utterly evil political system that masquerades as a religion. I cannot say that about Christianity although I think that the Catholic Church has done it's best on that score.

I do believe that whatever a man's religion, if he has lead a good life he will not deserve eternal hell, or a second death, according to whichever is believed, merely for not accepting Jesus as his personal saviour. That is an entirely different thing.


I recall reading a short story about a Frenchman in the late 1800s (IIRC) who wanted to fly. He worked and studied until he designed a set of bird wings he could wear on his arms and, if he could get enough wind, he could fly. It all appeared so reasonable he was totally sure it would work. So, he carefully made the wings, wore on the top of a tall building and jumped; they scooped up the large parts of his body with shovels. He was very sure he was right but he wasn't .... RIP.

For those who really think, there's a good message in that story!

The message is, get your physics right before you bet your life on something. (The video if this hero departing from the first floor of the Eiffel Tower is still around on the Internet. Another bit of Scientific heresy even you use)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBN3xfGrx_U

Or do you doubt that such a flight is impossible even today? No doubt many Christians of the time would have said that if God had intended man should fly then He would have given us wings, and promptly given up on the idea of flight as some sort of blasphemy. But no. You may have noticed airplanes overhead, hang gliders, paragliders, all sorts of airborne junk, even man made satellites travelling past out solar system, all brought to you by those terrible intellekshuall scientist chappies you so despise (when it's convenient).

Oh! The ultimate irony BTW. What killed him was a FAITH based upon ignorance. Had he studied just that bit harder and got the science right he could have made that flight.

[1hole]

.... OK, he's crazy in common parlance but his belief is no less sincere than any other.

So you happily (and correctly) judge him wrong but accord others your "respect" based on nothing more than their sincerity. And while you easily stipulate he is/was wrong, you are appalled at Christians who stipulate they/we are right. ???

Okay, ... we recognise your double standard even if you don't.


The point of my post was, who do I seek advice from? .... It sometimes seems to me that the last people on earth that might help me find the road to truth about spiritual matters are the faithful.

We finally agree on something.

Just a thought, you have repeatedly made it clear that there is nothing Christians can say or explain that you don't immediately reject out of hand. So, I wonder, if we should take your word (I don't) that you aren't a total troll, why in the world are you here amongst happy Christians where your own (supposed) intellect and knowledge of our God obviously far out shines ours?

Perhaps a Hindu guru with thousands of gods (take your choices from their long and variable list) might better answer your ever changing and convoluted questions. And he would probably respect you so much he would never tell you when you're wrong ... maybe.

You already know that no matter how intelligent and sincere you may be, you will remain hopelessly lost if you choose to follow the wrong God because there's only one that made you and only he has a blessed heaven.

[Leftyfixit]

First off religion is a man made thing. Each of us has to decide what we will or will not do with Jesus. Jesus ministered against religion more then any other person who has ever lived. Each of us chooses where We will send our soul for eternity. We also need to understand that Satan as a fallen angel hates us as much as it hates God. Satan will do anything to keep us from Jesus. We see all the evil in the world but we as human beings invited that evil into the world. Jesus told us clearly no one is without sin. We all fall short of the Glory of God. Jesus also tells us plainly we either trust and believe in Him or we don't. We choose where we will spend eternity. No ever said life would be easy if we trust in Jesus. By looking at the servants of Jesus we see that we as servants are under constant attack from Satan, it's servants and even other people. If we have doubts about the times we live in we can pray, read the Bible and it becomes clear we are closer to the end then to the beginning. No one is promised their next breath so we need to be ready for the moment our souls are required of us. If we are saved we should trust in Jesus no matter what comes against us. If we do not believe in Jesus we also choose our fate. No one is so bad that Jesus can not forgive them and save them if we ask. God bless you all in your choice for eternity.

[AK Caster]

Organized religion is about two things and that is power and controlling people. The basic premise is to invent something that cant be seen, felt, or heard and then make up rules how you should obey it. When something bad happens then its...…..oh well, free will and all, etc.
There is NO God that would sit idly by and watch people get massacred in the name of holy wars, the holocaust, cancer in children, pedophiles in the clergy, etc. If there is a God that allows these things to continue then what type of God is there?

Once in awhile someone will be medically "cured" by a miracle. Total hogwash. You want to show me a miracle? Show me someone who grew back a finger, hand, arm, foot, etc.

I have observed there are two types of people attracted to religion. The first are children who are forced to believe what their parents believe. The second are aging people who desperately want to cling to the notion there is everlasting life in the kingdom of heaven. Far more people would come out of shadows and admit they did not believe if their circle of friends would not blackball them. I have heard firsthand from friends that go to church and tell people they believe in God so their own business is not blackballed. And others who say they really don't believe, but just in case they are wrong they act like they do so they get everlasting life.

[1hole]

.... others who say they really don't believe, but just in case they are wrong they act like they do so they get everlasting life.

"Act like" they believe? Boy, are they going to be disappointed!

[DeputyDog25]

Why does it seem strange?
Within the human race there are hundreds or maybe millions of gods. It is a guaranteed fact that if you are a believer in a single god (monotheism) you do not believe in any of the rest of them. An atheist simply believes in one less god than you. So to most of the universe your one god belief means you are an atheist to all gods except one.
However strange and goofy you think atheists, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus,etc. are you have to know that they think your beliefs are just as unusual. Even more telling is the fact that most of you believers only adopt the faith of your parents and culture. That is not a real logical and error free process.

There is only ONE true GOD, the God of the universe, the creator of everything, the alpha and omega, the father of Jesus Christ (by the way, he is the only person to ever die and rise again). God and His word has withstood thousands of years of doubters such as yourself and no matter how hard you try you won’t be the first person in history to try and convince anyone that it is all a farce. I pray that you stop the analytics and accept the reality that God loves you, Christ died for you, and Heaven and Hell are real. One last thing, if you read the book of Revelation you’ll see that what you and every other non-believer has been trying to do for thousands of years; namely try and prove that God is not real was prophesied in Revelation.

[EDG]

Sorry no
You obviously did not read and comprehend what I said. All you did was repeat the programming that you have been receiving since your were a little kid.
There are millions of gods that humans believe in. Your god is one among many. For me your thoughts, beliefs and god tales are meaningless and irrelevant. Your tale of the holy trinity is one of the most unbelievable yarns ever told. Why would you ever believe your bible prophesy? Anyone can write book and claim anything. After all you are trying to attribute something supernatural to the writing of goat herders and other unknowns. The story of Christ was written several hundred years after he died so you know how accurate that is. We cannot even define who our own ancestors were 6 generations back. What makes you think that 2000 year old tale is the slightest bit accurate. It is no more accurate than the English tale of King Arthur. They cannot even prove King Arthur really existed and you cannot prove your story either. There is zero instance of anything outside of your bible that can provide the slightest bit of scientific or physical proof of the supernatural tales in your bible. Not one bit of it is observable today. Today there are 7.7 billion people on this earth and not a single one will rise from the dead or ascend to heaven.
I suppose your belief in your bible is so strong that if it told you to play in front of a train you would dance on the rails at the locomotive turns you into a grease spot. So confess. Would you play in front of a train if your bible told you to? I think you will say you will yet deep down inside you really wouldn't since you know that you would be killed. You are only going to believe something that you are going to profit from. And you believe you will gain an eternity in heaven. Without that bit of self serving greed you would not bother with believing such a far fetched fantasy.
Stick around another ten thousand years. The march of science will continue to discover the secrets of the universe. The believers of your faith will not be able to offer anything new. Not now and not ever. Your bible did not predict the existence of the New World and it will not predict what happens tomorrow either.



There is only ONE true GOD, the God of the universe, the creator of everything, the alpha and omega, the father of Jesus Christ (by the way, he is the only person to ever die and rise again). God and His word has withstood thousands of years of doubters such as yourself and no matter how hard you try you won’t be the first person in history to try and convince anyone that it is all a farce. I pray that you stop the analytics and accept the reality that God loves you, Christ died for you, and Heaven and Hell are real. One last thing, if you read the book of Revelation you’ll see that what you and every other non-believer has been trying to do for thousands of years; namely try and prove that God is not real was prophesied in Revelation.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Sorry no
You obviously did not read and comprehend what I said. All you did was repeat the programming that you have been receiving since your were a little kid.
There are millions of gods that humans believe in. Your god is one among many. For me your thoughts, beliefs and god tales are meaningless and irrelevant. Your tale of the holy trinity is one of the most unbelievable yarns ever told. Why would you ever believe your bible prophesy? Anyone can write book and claim anything. After all you are trying to attribute something supernatural to the writing of goat herders and other unknowns. The story of Christ was written several hundred years after he died so you know how accurate that is. We cannot even define who our own ancestors were 6 generations back. What makes you think that 2000 year old tale is the slightest bit accurate. It is no more accurate than the English tale of King Arthur. They cannot even prove King Arthur really existed and you cannot prove your story either. There is zero instance of anything outside of your bible that can provide the slightest bit of scientific or physical proof of the supernatural tales in your bible. Not one bit of it is observable today. Today there are 7.7 billion people on this earth and not a single one will rise from the dead or ascend to heaven.
I suppose your belief in your bible is so strong that if it told you to play in front of a train you would dance on the rails at the locomotive turns you into a grease spot. So confess. Would you play in front of a train if your bible told you to? I think you will say you will yet deep down inside you really wouldn't since you know that you would be killed. You are only going to believe something that you are going to profit from. And you believe you will gain an eternity in heaven. Without that bit of self serving greed you would not bother with believing such a far fetched fantasy.
Stick around another ten thousand years. The march of science will continue to discover the secrets of the universe. The believers of your faith will not be able to offer anything new. Not now and not ever. Your bible did not predict the existence of the New World and it will not predict what happens tomorrow either.

EDG,
Actually there IS evidence beyond the Bible. The problem is you bought into a protestant fallacy called sola scriptura, where the only evidence they will accept is the Bible. Thus much of your exposure is the Bible alone.

But there is an ancient historian named Josephus Flavius who mentions Christ and christians. Plus there are a ton of writings by authors of the second century AD. That's early enough that those authors and those who first read the writings personally knew the apostles.

On top of that there is the fact that judaism has survived so many enslavements. I challenge you to find ONE other religion that has survived through as many enslavements as that of Judaism. That in itself is strong evidence that there just might be something of the truth in the Jewish belief system.

As for believing in the faith of your parents vs believing in a default atheism, the former is far more logical and sound. One way to determine truth is to consider the motivations of those who are telling it to you. Parents are generally your best source they don't stand to gain much from lying to you.

Default atheism commits a major logical fallacy. When trying to find an explanation that best capture the truth, you have to examine ALL the possible explanations and pick the one that best explains the evidence. You don't have to find one that perfectly explains all the evidence (in fact those kind of explanation often don't exist). Default atheism puts all OTHER beliefs systems under scrutiny and having found fault with all of them (of course) the person defaults to atheism. But they never put atheism under the same scrutiny as the rest.

Thus the I-believe-in-one-less-god atheism is one of the worst reasons to be an atheist.

[DeputyDog25]

Good science has proven there is a Creator
The second law of thermodynamics , eliminates evolution !
There are 2 theories on how we got here , evolution and creation ,
when you disprove one , you prove the other .
Oh , what does the 2nd law of thermodynamics , say ?
Everything , not most things , not some things , but everything goes from organization into chaos , why does that matter ?
Because , if you carefuly look at evolution , you will see that it says , everything goes from chaos into organization !

The Empty Tomb

First, the evidence indicates that Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers on Sunday morning. According to Jacob Kremer, an Austrian scholar who has specialized in the study of the resurrection, "by far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the Biblical statements about the empty tomb." And he lists twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more that he neglected to mention. According to the New Testament critic D. H. Van Daalen, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds. Those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."

Jesus' Appearances after His Death

Secondly, the evidence indicates that on separate occasions, different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death. According to the late Norman Perrin of the University of Chicago, "The more we investigate the traditions with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear on which they are based." These appearances were bodily and physical and were witnessed not only by believers, but also by skeptics, unbelievers, and even enemies.

The Origin of the Christian Faith

Thirdly, the very origin of the Christian faith implies the reality of the resurrection. We all know that Christianity sprang into being in the middle of the first century. Where did it come from? Why did it arise? Well, all scholars agree that Christianity came into being because the original disciples believed that God had raised Jesus from the dead, and they proclaimed this message everywhere that they went. But where in the world did they come up with that outlandish belief?

If you deny that Jesus really did rise from the dead, then you've got to explain the origin of the disciples' belief either in terms of Jewish influences or Christian influences. Obviously, it couldn't have come from Christian influences for the simple reason that there wasn't any Christianity yet! But neither can it be explained from the side of Jewish influences because the Jewish concept of resurrection was radically different than Jesus' resurrection. As the reknowned New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias puts it, "Nowhere does one find in the literature [of ancient Judaism] anything comparable to the resurrection of Jesus." The most plausible explanation of the origin of the disciples' belief, therefore, is that Jesus really did rise from the dead.

Attempts to explain away these three great facts, like "the disciples stole the body," or "Jesus wasn't really dead," have been universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. The simple fact is that there just is no plausible, naturalistic explanation of these facts. And therefore it seems to me that the Christian is amply justified in believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be. But that entails that God exists.

The Bible Is Unique in Content
First, compared to other “holy books,” the Bible is unique in many respects. Not only was it composed by at least 40 writers, on multiple continents, over a span of 1,500 years, but it is not what we would expect to find were it “made up.” The Bible also includes major moral failings of its heroes, yet most writings of other religions tend to whitewash the flaws of their heroes.

Moreover, the Bible’s theme is quite unlike those found in other religions. Manmade religions teach that a man can earn salvation through various practices and good works. The Bible explains that man is sinful, deserving of God’s judgment, and that no amount of good works could ever remove our guilt. God Himself solves our problem by becoming a man and taking our punishment upon Himself. Manmade religions are about what man can do for his god, but the Bible is about what God has already done for man.

The Bible Is Confirmed by Archaeology
Second, the Bible accurately reveals historical people, events, and places. Consider the following items described in our article, “Archaeological Finds.”

Discovered in Israel, the Tel Dan Stele has been dated to the ninth century BC and mentions the “House of David,” shattering the long-held view of many skeptics that David was a mythical person.
The Mesha Stele describes Moab’s subjection under Omri, the king of Israel. It also references the personal name of the God of the Bible (Yahweh), and very likely contains a reference to the “House of David” (this is debated due to an unreadable letter).
The Pilate stone provides archaeological evidence for the existence of the man who sentenced Jesus to death on the Cross. Skeptics frequently denied his existence until the discovery of this stone, which identifies Pontius Pilate as the Prefect of Judea.1
Dr. Nelson Glueck was the president of Hebrew Union College and a highly respected archaeologist whose reliance upon the historical accuracy of Scripture led to the discovery of 1,500 ancient sites. Regarding the Bible and archaeology, he stated the following:

It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries.2
The distinguished archaeologist Dr. William F. Albright also asserted the accuracy of the Bible’s history.

Thanks to modern research we now recognize its substantial historicity. The narratives of the Patriarchs, of Moses and the Exodus, of the Conquest of Canaan, of the Judges, the Monarchy, Exile, and Restoration, have all been confirmed and illustrated to an extent that I should have thought impossible forty years ago.3
Glueck and Albright focused their attention on the Old Testament, but what about the New Testament? Does it enjoy a similar level of confirmation? Actually, perhaps because it is more recent, the evidence consistent with the New Testament is more abundant. Consider the following details in just a single chapter of the Bible that have been confirmed by historians and archaeologists:

The proper location (Amphipolis and Apollonia) of where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey (Acts 17:1)
The presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1)
The proper title, “politarchs,” used of the magistrates there (Acts 17:6)
The correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens with favoring east winds of summer sailing (Acts 17:14)
The abundant presence of images in Athens (Acts 17:16)
The reference to a synagogue in Athens (Acts 17:17)
The depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora (Acts 17:17)
The use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul, a spermologos (Acts 17:18), as well as the court (areios pagos)
The proper characterization of the Athenian character (Acts 17:21)
An altar to an “unknown god” (Acts 17:23)
The proper reaction of Greek philosophers who denied bodily resurrection (Acts 17:32)
Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court (Acts 17:34)4
Remember, all of these accurate details are found in just one chapter. This does not prove every word of Scripture is true, but it reveals that the writer (Luke) had intimate knowledge of the people, customs, and places he wrote about. Also, we have no record of any ancient writer denying the historicity of the people and places described in Scripture, but we do have a number of first- and second-century sources from outside the Bible confirming the existence of Jesus.

Many more archaeologists could be cited who verify the accuracy of the biblical text. Of course we’ll never find archaeological or paleographic evidence to confirm every person, event, or place described in the Bible. For example, historical research can provide corroborating evidence for the Crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate (Tacitus mentions these details in Annals), but scientific disciplines cannot confirm that His death on the Cross satisfied God’s wrath against sin. However, the abundance of finds matching Scripture perfectly that have already been found show that the Bible was not just “made up.”5

THE ABUNDANCE OF FINDS MATCHING SCRIPTURE PERFECTLY THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN FOUND SHOW THAT THE BIBLE WAS NOT JUST “MADE UP.”
Compare the Bible’s accuracy with the miserable archaeological record of the Mormon religion. The Mormon “holy books” teach that Native Americans are really Jews who fled Jerusalem, but DNA studies have falsified this claim. Furthermore, despite millions of dollars spent on excavations in the Americas, archaeologists have not uncovered a shred of evidence to support Mormon claims, and the early Americans did not wield scimitars or ride horses and elephants.6

Scientists from every discipline could be quoted whose work in their respective fields have either persuaded or further convinced them that the Bible is true. But we should not rely primarily on the conclusions of learned men and women of science. While their statements are helpful, we must recognize that they can err and change their minds. So is there anything we can look at to demonstrate the Bible was not just an invention of man? Indeed there is.

The Bible Is Confirmed Through God’s Challenge to Other Religions
Throughout Isaiah 40–46, God, speaking through the prophet, repeatedly challenges the false gods to prove themselves. Specifically, He challenges them to tell the future and bring it to pass.

“Present your case,” says the Lord. “Bring forth your strong reasons,” says the King of Jacob. “Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; let them show the former things, what they were, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare to us things to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods. (Isaiah 41:21–23)
So here is the test for the other religions of the world. Can they accurately foretell future events? After all, only the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator knows everything that will happen and has the ability to bring it to pass. And God has established His righteous character through this unique ability. In Isaiah 41:26, the Lord asks, “Who has declared from the beginning, that we may know? And former times, that we may say, ‘He is righteous’?”

Most of the founders of the world’s religions never attempted to tell the future.7 Outside of the Bible, the other “holy books” of the world do not really include prophecies. The vague predictions of Nostradamus and demonstrably false prognostications of Edgar Cayce do not meet the biblical standard of 100 percent accuracy for a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:22).

Now take a look at what God says about His own ability in this area:

I am the Lord, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to carved images. Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them. (Isaiah 42:8–9)
What does prophecy have to do with whether the Bible was “made up”? Mere men cannot accurately tell the future, and yet more than one-fourth of the Bible was prophetic at the time of its writing, indicating that these men were not simply making up what they wrote—their writing was inspired by God. The biblical prophecies contain specific people, times, places, and events, and they are generally straightforward. Most of them were written centuries before the events described, and those that have already been fulfilled came to pass exactly as foretold (some prophecies await future fulfillment).

Consider just a handful of the hundreds of accurate prophecies recorded in Scripture:

The Messiah Would Be . . . Prophesied Fulfilled
Born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:25
Born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1, 6
Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver Zechariah 11:12 Matthew 26:15, 49
Have clothing divided at the Cross Psalm 22:18 John 19:24
Wounded for our sins Isaiah 53:5 1 Peter 2:24
Killed for others Daniel 9:26 2 Corinthians 5:21
Raised from the dead Psalm 16:10 Luke 24:6
In addition to dozens of prophecies about the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Old Testament contains hundreds of detailed prophecies, often to announce judgment upon Israel and the surrounding nations for their disobedience.

When addressing Messianic prophecies, skeptics often assume that Jesus simply set out to fulfill certain predictions; but if Jesus were merely a man, how would He make sure that He would be born of a virgin in Bethlehem or that He would be raised from the dead?

Many skeptics also assume these prophecies were written after the fact, but all of the prophecies mentioned in the chart above were written at least 400 years before the events occurred. Even if a person rejects the well-supported traditional dates assigned to the Old Testament books, he still needs to deal with the fact that the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, includes these prophecies and was translated well before Christ’s birth. Furthermore, portions of each of the Old Testament books in the chart were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the great Isaiah Scroll, which is dated to at least a century before Christ’s birth and contains multiple precise prophesies about the Messiah. How could the writers of the Old Testament possibly know what would come to pass with perfect accuracy? There is only one logical answer. God inspired their words; they did not make up what they wrote.

Conclusion
The truth is that God has inspired the writing of His Word in the collection of 66 books we call the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16). The notion that men just made it up is quite reasonably dispensed by Scripture’s uniqueness, its historical and archaeological accuracy, and its inclusion of fulfilled detailed prophecy. These facts do not necessarily prove that every word of the Bible is accurate, but they do provide verification for many portions of Scripture, demonstrate its divine origin, and give us great confidence that the details not subject to scientific verification are also true. Ultimately, the reason we believe that all Scripture is inspired by God is because the Holy Spirit dwells within us, providing assurance and conviction as we prayerfully read and study the Bible.

THE BIBLE EXPLAINS THE MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGE WE COULD EVER KNOW.
Finally, in addition to the divine origin of the text, the Bible explains the most important message we could ever know. As people who have sinned against our perfectly holy Creator, we deserve His judgment, but God sent His Son to die a sacrificial death on the Cross so that we can be forgiven. Three days later, He rose from the dead, demonstrating His power over sin and death and providing the guarantee of eternal life to all who trust in Him (Romans 10:9).

If you have not already done so, call out to the God who inspired the writing of the Bible. Turn from your sin and ask for His forgiveness.

[Thundarstick]

Thank you D Dog25!

The reasons you list, and so many more, IS the reason Christians do not have a blind faith! It's a faith built on proof that God is able to deliver on his promises!

[dtknowles]

Good science has proven there is a Creator
The second law of thermodynamics , eliminates evolution !
There are 2 theories on how we got here , evolution and creation ,
when you disprove one , you prove the other .
Oh , what does the 2nd law of thermodynamics , say ?
Everything , not most things , not some things , but everything goes from organization into chaos , why does that matter ?
…....


That is not what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says! Where did you learn your Thermodynamics?


Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process. In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes, the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.

If everything went from order to chaos then you could never make steel from Iron ore or never build a computer.

Tim

[DeputyDog25]

Uh, excuse me but where did you learn Thermodynamics? Wikipedia? Whatever.

“If everything went from order to chaos then you could never make steel from Iron ore or never build a computer”.
Tim

This is actually a ignorant statement and it’s because you just cut and paste Wikipedia without understanding what it is you are pasting.

Everything, not some things but everything has a beginning (new) and from that point starts to disintegrate (chaos). This has nothing to do with the production of steel or building a computer, in fact it proves the theory. Steel is formed and from that point, no matter what you do, at some point in time it will disintegrate (chaos), some as a computer, when new it has no issues, no viruses, etc.. but eventually will no longer function at all. (Chaos).
The second law revisited

The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental laws of nature, having profound implications. In essence, it says this:

The second law - The level of disorder in the universe is steadily increasing. Systems tend to move from ordered behavior to more random behavior.

One implication of the second law is that heat flows spontaneously from a hotter region to a cooler region, but will not flow spontaneously the other way. This applies to anything that flows: it will naturally flow downhill rather than uphill.

If you watched a film forwards and backwards, you would almost certainly be able to tell which way was which because of the way things happen. A pendulum will gradually lose energy and come to a stop, but it doesn't pick up energy spontaneously; an ice cube melts to form a puddle, but a puddle never spontaneously transforms itself into an ice cube; a glass falling off a table might shatter when it hits the ground, but the pieces will never spontaneously jump back together to form the glass again. Many processes are irreversible, and any irreversible process increases the level of disorder. One of the most important implications of the second law is that it indicates which way time goes - time naturally flows in a way that increases disorder.

The second law also predicts the end of the universe: it implies that the universe will end in a "heat death" in which everything is at the same temperature. This is the ultimate level of disorder; if everything is at the same temperature, no work can be done, and all the energy will end up as the random motion of atoms and molecules.

Entropy

A measure of the level of disorder of a system is entropy, represented by S. Although it's difficult to measure the total entropy of a system, it's generally fairly easy to measure changes in entropy. For a thermodynamic system involved in a heat transfer of size Q at a temperature T , a change in entropy can be measured by:



The second law of thermodynamics can be stated in terms of entropy. If a reversible process occurs, there is no net change in entropy. In an irreversible process, entropy always increases, so the change in entropy is positive. The total entropy of the universe is continually increasing.

There is a strong connection between probability and entropy. This applies to thermodynamic systems like a gas in a box as well as to tossing coins. If you have four pennies, for example, the likelihood that all four will land heads up is relatively small. It is six times more likely that you'll get two heads and two tails. The two heads - two tails state is the most likely, shows the most disorder, and has the highest entropy. Four heads is less likely, has the most order, and the lowest entropy. If you tossed more coins, it would be even less likely that they'd all land heads up, and even more likely that you'd end up with close to the same number of heads as tails.

With a gas in a box, the probability that all the gas molecules are in one corner of the box at the same time is very small (for a typical box full of 1020 molecules or more, incredibly small): this is therefore a low entropy state. It is much more likely that the molecules are randomly distributed around the box, and are moving in random directions; this high disorder state is a considerably higher entropy state. The second law doesn't rule out all the molecules ending up in one corner, but it means it's far more likely that the molecules will be randomly distributed, and to move towards a random distribution from an orderly distribution, as opposed to the other way around.



That is not what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says! Where did you learn your Thermodynamics?


Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process. In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes, the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.

If everything went from order to chaos then you could never make steel from Iron ore or never build a computer.

Tim