Yo, TK:

You're misquoting me, man. You meant Totenkopf, right?

You're right! Fixing...

I don't acknowledge the existance of Darth Vader, but I can judge him for the he was in the fictional story of Star Wars, just as I can judge the Biblical god in his fictional story.

Look, I know you don't like God. However, the implication that He is a 'b*stard' is really rather upsetting to me. I know you don't like Him. I'm not asking you to like Him or even respect Him. But I'm trying hard to handle your points with respect and the expletives are making it harder. Could you do me the favor of not connecting God with expletives?



I'm not sure what you mean by this and how it relates to my post.

You asked this question:
Who made up this rule? What gave god the authority to do such a thing? Why can't we try him for crimes against humanity?

You accuse Him of crimes against humanity for killing people arbitrarily. But you're assuming that He's killed people. I'm saying He has not killed people, but rather taken them from this world to be with Him. Since they exist with Him and have not been killed, then He cannot be guilty of murder or crimes against humanity.


I don't know of many good parents who send their child to be tortured forever in hell by the devil simply because they reject their parents, maybe even for a very good reason (perhaps the child's parents are invisible entities in the sky that never speak to their child, never show themselves, and never offer any evidence of their very existance - like a deadbeat dad).

One of my dearest friends had symptoms I felt were consistent with early stage AIDS. Out of love for him, I urged him to get tested so that he could get the treatment started that would save his life. He refused to do that. I could have physically picked him up, tied him in my car, and dragged him over to the doctor to get treatment, but physically harming him and violating his rights in order to comply with my wishes would not have been loving on my part, even if it would ultimately save his life. I had to let him make his own decisions, even though I knew what the outcome would be. He became very ill with advanced AIDS about a year later and died about 16 months after that. If he had gone to the doctor when I asked him to, his AIDS would have been caught at a much earlier stage when it was far more treatable, and he might even still be alive today. But it had to be _his_ choice to go to the doctor, not mine.

As a parent myself, one of the most difficult things for me to do is to stand aside and let my children experience the consequences of their mistakes when they make decisions that are wrong--within reason of course, because they are quite young. I can advise them all I want, but if they choose not to listen, then I have to allow them to learn from that mistake, even when it's not pleasant (e.g. if you leave your toys on the ground and mama doesn't see them and steps on them, you have to experience the consequence of a broken toy, even if it's not fun).
When my children are adults, I'm not going to be able to force them to do anything or keep them from doing something to themselves that may be self-destructive (e.g. smoking, drugs). I can love them as much as God does, but I won't be able to take the cigarette out of their mouths and lock them up somewhere so that they can't smoke. The same with God--He's not going to force anyone to love Him if they don't want to.

Look, I know you don't like God. However, the implication that He is a 'b*stard' is really rather upsetting to me. I know you don't like Him. I'm not asking you to like Him or even respect Him. But I'm trying hard to handle your points with respect and the expletives are making it harder. Could you do me the favor of not connecting God with expletives?

I must agree. I have found debates to be so much for enjoyable if you stay civil. Jae has stayed polite to us godless heretics, so it's only natural to do so back. To expect otherwise is hypocritical. :)

One of my dearest friends had symptoms I felt were consistent with early stage AIDS. Out of love for him, I urged him to get tested so that he could get the treatment started that would save his life. He refused to do that.

At the end, though, I assume you weren't blamed for not forcing him?

I can love them as much as God does, but I won't be able to take the cigarette out of their mouths and lock them up somewhere so that they can't smoke.

To compare this to God and His followers, have you told your kids the negative effects of smoking? Because that wouldn't be on the same degree as religion.

The same with God--He's not going to force anyone to love Him if they don't want to.

How exactly does Hell factor into this, then? You've implied that in the end, you have a final choice whether to love Him or not. What happens if you refuse, from your perspective?

TK:

Hey, I don't get it either, so don't feel bad. I just can't deny His existence, and I can't really explain anything beyond that, nor do I feel obliged to even try. Anyone that says that they can is suffering from delusions of grandeur (a common problem among the various zealots). I'd also be lying if I said that I worshipped Him, because I don't. I'm not trying to take the moral high ground here, because there is none to be had by anyone, anywhere. Even if there was no religion at all (the dream of many Lucasforumites, I've gathered) Earth would hardly be a Utopia. People would still find an excuse to hate and kill each other. Thats human nature, and there's no escape from it.


Actually, Q, Tk was correctly quoting you from post #148.

He was quoting both of us in the same post, and put my name on your quotes, but he fixed it. :)

How exactly does Hell factor into this, then? You've implied that in the end, you have a final choice whether to love Him or not. What happens if you refuse, from your perspective?
If you refuse to love Him and to follow His will for you, you will not be allowed to spend eternity with Him in Heaven; you will spend it in Hell. It is like having a grown child in the house. If the child will not follow the rules of the house, the father has every right to say, "You cannot live in this house anymore." Now, God will allow you to make that choice to acknowledge His sovereignty and accept His forgiveness up to the time of your death. But if you choose not to do that, He will not allow you to spend eternity in His house.

If you refuse to love Him and to follow His will for you,

Please clarify. Do you mean His love for you, or His will in general? :)

It is like having a grown child in the house. If the child will not follow the rules of the house, the father has every right to say, "You cannot live in this house anymore."

That is different. If the kid leaves, he can buy a house, rent an apartment, etc. He doesn't have to live in the gutter. However, with God the only options seem to be eternal bliss or eternal suffering.

Now, God will allow you to make that choice to acknowledge His sovereignty and accept His forgiveness up to the time of your death. But if you choose not to do that, He will not allow you to spend eternity in His house.

So there's nothing in between? What about Limbo? What if a couple years after moving into Hell, you genuinely feel love for God? Would you be forced to still suffer?

Limbo was traditionally where souls went that weren't baptized (and probably all the souls prior to the Ressurection that didn't end up in hell). As to your second question, I guess you have to wonder if the condemned truly loves God or just can't take the suffering. My maternal grandmother didn't actually believe God truly sent anyone to hell as she figured we were already there. I think that the eternal punishment idea is one that flies in the face of the concept of a just, loving, but most importantly merciful God.

Q-cool, didn't realize I was looking at a fixed version of original post.

If you do not acknowledge His existence, then why are you judging Him?
What renders religion obsolete and unnecessary?
Since I think that god doesn't exist, I can't be judging him, but I can judge religion. I believe that it's holding us back, that it's preventing us from completely turning to science and finding the answers we are looking for, preventing us from making significant technological and scientific progress in areas like cloning, for example, cybernetics also. I believe that science and scientific facts will give all the answers to us and secure our future and our survival as a species, not some antiquated belief.
My philosophy is ''if you need to believe in something, then believe in yourself'', because praying for something won't make it come true, you have to act for your wish to become reality.

Actually igyman, science doesn't give all the answers. There are somethings that haven't been explained yet and the science hasn't been able to disprove it either for that is the goal behind science. As to the example about cloning, you leave out the point of morality. Do you have any idea how many embryos were killed and badly mutated to get Dolly? The point I am trying to make is that scientists are worrying too much about whether or not they can do it than stopping to think if they should.

In response to the original question I have to say that was a gross simplification of that. It is bad to kill someone but you wont go to hell. If that were the case then the Christians who are soldiers would be spending eternity in hell since they are killing. As far as I know, God made that a commandment not to kill but he realized that would be difficult to keep. Human beings are violent creatures. Need proof watch chimps fight. Anyway that was when he sent his son Jesus to save us for our sins. The only way to be with him in paradise is to accept God through Jesus name. Gross simplification if you ask me.

Actually igyman, science doesn't give all the answers. There are somethings that haven't been explained yet and the science hasn't been able to disprove it either for that is the goal behind science.
You're right, it doesn't, yet, but that doesn't mean that it can't give all the answers, more importantly all the right answers, which I sincerely doubt when it comes to religion.

As to the example about cloning, you leave out the point of morality. Do you have any idea how many embryos were killed and badly mutated to get Dolly? The point I am trying to make is that scientists are worrying too much about whether or not they can do it than stopping to think if they should.
That's exactly the attitude I was referring to. I think this is the wrong attitude when it comes to cloning and I also think that it has been sparked by the Church, more than any other organisation, or group. Just like the abortion topic. Cloning isn't a bad thing and it wasn't imagined as a bad thing either. The primary purpose of its development is to upgrade our medical science and save lives - two words, organ cloning.
Of course, before you can learn to clone only specific parts, you have to learn how to clone the entire body. I won't go into further detail about cloning, because it would be even more off-topic than this entire religion vs. atheism discussion already is.

Look, I know you don't like God. However, the implication that He is a 'b*stard' is really rather upsetting to me. I know you don't like Him. I'm not asking you to like Him or even respect Him. But I'm trying hard to handle your points with respect and the expletives are making it harder. Could you do me the favor of not connecting God with expletives?

Well, can I at least say that god is worse than Hitler? Please?

You accuse Him of crimes against humanity for killing people arbitrarily. But you're assuming that He's killed people. I'm saying He has not killed people, but rather taken them from this world to be with Him. Since they exist with Him and have not been killed, then He cannot be guilty of murder or crimes against humanity.

Flooding the world and drowning everyone is killing them. Drowning someone would be killing them.

The same with God--He's not going to force anyone to love Him if they don't want to.

So what you're saying is that god is saying "Okay okay, you can be gay/a fornicator/atheist/Muslim/Hindu/etc. and that's your decision... BUT - you will spend the rest of time being tortured in hell."

the child will not follow the rules of the house, the father has every right to say, "You cannot live in this house anymore."

Actually, he doesn't have that right. Kicking a child out to live in the streets would be considered to be child neglect/abuse. But apparently god doesn't have to follow those standards.

Since I think that god doesn't exist, I can't be judging him, but I can judge religion. I believe that it's holding us back, that it's preventing us from completely turning to science and finding the answers we are looking for, preventing us from making significant technological and scientific progress in areas like cloning, for example, cybernetics also. I believe that science and scientific facts will give all the answers to us and secure our future and our survival as a species, not some antiquated belief.
My philosophy is ''if you need to believe in something, then believe in yourself'', because praying for something won't make it come true, you have to act for your wish to become reality.
Amen to that (no pun intended, well maybe a little :) )

That's exactly the attitude I was referring to. I think this is the wrong attitude when it comes to cloning and I also think that it has been sparked by the Church, more than any other organisation, or group. Just like the abortion topic. Cloning isn't a bad thing and it wasn't imagined as a bad thing either. The primary purpose of its development is to upgrade our medical science and save lives - two words, organ cloning.
Of course, before you can learn to clone only specific parts, you have to learn how to clone the entire body. I won't go into further detail about cloning, because it would be even more off-topic than this entire religion vs. atheism discussion already is.
Then you are questioning morality. Are you saying that you have no morals?

If you refuse to love Him and to follow His will for you, you will not be allowed to spend eternity with Him in Heaven; you will spend it in Hell.
How do I know what His will for me is? How has he ever made this clear to me? And please don't answer the Bible because I consider that to be a fictional story, or at least most of it...

It is like having a grown child in the house. If the child will not follow the rules of the house, the father has every right to say, "You cannot live in this house anymore."
But what if that father is a sick and twisted man who beats up his family every day? Does the child still need to follow the rules of the house if it means being molested?

Now, God will allow you to make that choice to acknowledge His sovereignty and accept His forgiveness up to the time of your death. But if you choose not to do that, He will not allow you to spend eternity in His house.
Again, that is a very hypocritical statement, so you can be the best, most noble person ever, but if you don't believe in God you will end up in Hell?

How do I know what His will for me is? How has he ever made this clear to me? And please don't answer the Bible because I consider that to be a fictional story, or at least most of it...

In order to answer this question, you would have to open the Bible. If you are interested in Christianity, the Bible is the only source for your information. God's will for each person is different. Your destiny is not written in stone, but what God wants for his people is. If you have another religion in mind, you can read their doctrines. It all depends on what your interested in. This is a self preference question. I think.



But what if that father is a sick and twisted man who beats up his family every day? Does the child still need to follow the rules of the house if it means being molested?

I believe Mr. Onasi was referencing a good father. Someone who is caring, nuturing, and patient. Since he was talking about God, he was trying to make a collation for you. ;)


Again, that is a very hypocritical statement, so you can be the best, most noble person ever, but if you don't believe in God you will end up in Hell?

Hypocritical? Hmm...
Actually, I believe God made it very clear that you have to believe in him to get into heaven. (And- Except his son as your savior) You cannot get into a place, which you don't believe in.

If you believe that God is fictional, heaven does not exist to you. Otherwords, atheism is the belief in nothing; therefore, there is nothing to go to. You just die, and there is no heaven.

Actually, I do believe there is something after death, since I believe in ghosts and spirits, I just don't believe in the Christian Heaven that's all...

Are you saying that you have no morals?
I'm not saying that at all. You're missing the point and the point is that with the development of cloning our medicine will advance significantly and more lives will be saved thanks to it. That's why I don't have a problem with the deaths of embrios. The reality is that all the progress we've made so far wasn't made without having to make moral decisions and wasn't made without sacrifices.

Actually, I do believe there is something after death, since I believe in ghosts and spirits, I just don't believe in the Christian Heaven that's all...
Oh Okay.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
---------------------------------
Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
- hypocrite adjective

By definition, God cannot be a hypocrite. But setting aside that distinction (person), how is God putting on a false sense of religion or virtue? You can't refer to the second definition b/c it's made quite clear what is necessary to enter heaven. Said God would actually be hypocritical if He said one set of people can get into heaven one way, but others had to do something different all together. So, technically, God would only be hypocritical if He allowed athiests and non believers to enter heaven , despite their willful and unabating rejection of Him, in spite of telling everyone that they had to accept "Him" in order to enter heaven.

An apparent failure by God to operate on your terms of what constitutes virtue (let alone religion), does not make Him a hypocrite.

But you didn't answer my question, so you can be the best, most noble person ever, and you will still end up in Hell for not believing in God?

Actually, I believe that that question was addressed earlier. There are 2 possibilities, apparently. 1. You repent when you meet your maker, provided your given the chance or 2. yeah, unfortunately you go to hell. Two of course presupposes that you pointedly rejected God, not merely going through life never having heard of him. But as I said before, whether you end up in heaven or hell is for God alone to decide. I'm curious as to what exactly you learned about this stuff in school. Surely someone must have addressed these issues at some point. O'course, maybe not. Where I went to Catholic HS (9-12), we got taught a lot of things that weren't legit. For instance, going to church on sunday wasn't necessary if you found something to do that was more meaningful to you, that premarital sex was ok if the relationship was committed and the old bit about no infallible teachings in the church. These things have no place in a Catholic school curriculum as they fly in the face of Catholic teachings. They're of course irrelevant and nonbinding elsewhere.

@ igyman: yes cloning could produce the possibility of organs and such but at the stage we are at now, the moral imperative has jurisdiction especially in the Bible Belt, which was how Bush won anyway.

@ Totnkpf: what Catholic school did you go to? To the whole church on Sunday thing: The origin of Sunday being the seventh day was developed when Constatine, a devote pagan until his death when he converted, attempted to indoctrinate his people with Christianity. Sunday was orginally a day of worship for the sun god. It was a holy day and naturally the whole Sabbath thing fit in nicely. The Jews literally believe in the seventh day and to them the Sabbath or Shabbat is Saturday. The church is not a building but its people. The purpose of church is for fellow believers to congregate and study and share their faith.
The premarital sex thing: Moral issues and such that I will not delve into seeing as it is my personal opinion that it is wrong anyway.
The infallible teachings of the Catholic Church: Pure baloney! Tradition is very hard to break when the mindset is establish. Look at the sale of indulgences when Luther posted his opposition on the church doors. Paying money so that even a dead persons sins can be forgiven, a scam if you ask me and not at all in accordance with what the Bible says. The praying to the Virgin was something that was used as a conversion with the Mexica/Aztecs with the appearance of the Lady at Guadalupe to Juan Diego. She is associated with one of the fertility mother goddesses and I could go on but I wont. Anyway some teachings still fall right and others are a result of longstanding tradition. However, if you read the Bible, Jesus himself says something along the lines that non one can come to the Father except through him. Simply put, if you believe in God, the Father and you believe that he sent His only begotten Son so that he may die for your sins and you believe that with all your heart, you will be saved.

Sorry for the long winded talking. I am an anthroplogist and things like the history of the cross and other things fascinate me.

Paying money so that even a dead persons sins can be forgiven, a scam if you ask me and not at all in accordance with what the Bible says.Obviously, that's why this isn't practiced anymore.

And Constantine chose Sunday as the day of worship because it was the day when Christ rose from the dead, I'm pretty sure.

@ igyman: yes cloning could produce the possibility of organs and such but at the stage we are at now, the moral imperative has jurisdiction especially in the Bible Belt, which was how Bush won anyway.

@ Totnkpf: what Catholic school did you go to? To the whole church on Sunday thing: The origin of Sunday being the seventh day was developed when Constatine, a devote pagan until his death when he converted, attempted to indoctrinate his people with Christianity. Sunday was orginally a day of worship for the sun god. It was a holy day and naturally the whole Sabbath thing fit in nicely. The Jews literally believe in the seventh day and to them the Sabbath or Shabbat is Saturday. The church is not a building but its people. The purpose of church is for fellow believers to congregate and study and share their faith.
The premarital sex thing: Moral issues and such that I will not delve into seeing as it is my personal opinion that it is wrong anyway.
The infallible teachings of the Catholic Church: Pure baloney! Tradition is very hard to break when the mindset is establish. Look at the sale of indulgences when Luther posted his opposition on the church doors. Paying money so that even a dead persons sins can be forgiven, a scam if you ask me and not at all in accordance with what the Bible says. The praying to the Virgin was something that was used as a conversion with the Mexica/Aztecs with the appearance of the Lady at Guadalupe to Juan Diego. She is associated with one of the fertility mother goddesses and I could go on but I wont. Anyway some teachings still fall right and others are a result of longstanding tradition. However, if you read the Bible, Jesus himself says something along the lines that non one can come to the Father except through him. Simply put, if you believe in God, the Father and you believe that he sent His only begotten Son so that he may die for your sins and you believe that with all your heart, you will be saved.

Sorry for the long winded talking. I am an anthroplogist and things like the history of the cross and other things fascinate me.


Sunday is traditionally when the Catholic church marks the "Sabbath" (Keep Holy the Lord's day), but perhaps I should have said attend Mass to spare you any confusion. As to the other stuff, my point wasn't that they were inherently good/bad or true/false. Simply put, parochial school teachers are not hired to teach things that fly in face of that's faith's beliefs.

Darth Moeller: Sunday was a pagan holiday and because Constantine was trying to promote Christianity, he did what is commonly called tranmutation or a borrowing of various symbols. Sunday's name comes from the pagan name for the sun god hence Sun in Sunday. As for Jesus rising from the dead, the Bible says something like on the third day he rose again. It doesn't say anything about Sunday. It only says on the seventh day He rested from creation. As I said before the Jews practice Shabbat which is the Jewish Sabbath that begins at sundown Friday and ends sundown Saturday, the seventh day.
Totenkopf: Maybe you should have been taught by Jesuits like I have for a year. As far as I know, they taught religious subjects yes but they also encouraged the teaching of the secular sciences, the math and science. They are Catholics mind you but more liberal in terms of enlightened thought. They were persecuted by none other than the Catholic Church at times because their ideas threaten teachings or something. Funny thing was that the Jesuits were more successful at the Christian conversion of thye Indian groups in the New World than the Church.

This thread has devolved significally from the original intent. Why is it so hard for people to realize that others have differing views? There is no need as far as I know to blatantly offend someone by attacking their view on religion. We get it, you don't agree with Christianity. Great for you, more than a sixth of the world's population agrees with you(possibly a third or more). For those of you who are Christian, or any other religion for that matter, it's great that you believe in what you believe. Noone here will convince another that either a) religion is false or b)religion is truth. The civil, respectful, peaceful debate on religion is not what I'm talking about; equating God and Hitler just seems designed to start infuriate and offend. Just because God didn't intervene in the way you desire in whatever example you pick doesn't mean he is on the same level as Hitler or others of his type. My views on religion are skeptical at best, but just because I don't agree with organized religion (key word: organized) doesn't give me the right to dismiss others' opinions and beliefs.

Basically belief and faith is a way to give meaning to one's life, regardless of what religion one follows. Religion is a subset of belief, a way to meet others who believe similarly to what you believe. How is it any different whether one believes in a higher power or science or a microwave oven or nothing at all? (please don't start the false idolatry thing, my example's purely a philosophical thought) What matters is that you believe in something(including nothing) and that your belief enriches your life. It's a personal thing. Most in the world believe in a higher power while, logically, the rest don't. Just respect that others have different views and that what doesn't make sense to you may make perfect sense to them and vice-versa.

I realize this may seem like quite a rant but seeing how this thread has turned into a "religion vs not" UFC match just isn't pleasing to read/view.

My old man actually was taught by Jesuits, though whether it was HS or Uni I don't recall. Parochial schools teach "secular" subjects like the humanities and sciences, b/c they probably couldn't function as accredited institutions otherwise. I think, though, that the Jesuits became more liberal over the last century or so and were not always so "enlightened" on matters of the faith, so to speak.

What an interesting topic :) I now feel bad for missing the last week and a half.

Before I start, I'll clarify a few things about myself. I don't believe in God. I believe religion has been used to political ends for too long. I'm not anthropologist. I'm no historian. I'm a future political scientist. All I will state in this post is based on my limited knowledge of everything regarding Christianity, Islam and "Western civilization". Limited, but not too much.

I'm going to try and explore some of statements made by the various posters. I haven't carefully read every single post in the thread.

First off, I see some statements about morals in western culture taking its roots from the Bible. The question is where does the Bible takes its roots from? Religion, no matter which, has always been influenced by old thinkers, myths and other such element. Most of the ten commandments can be attributed to a simple utilitarian equation. "Do not steal" for example, would be "common sense". Is thievery worth the consequences of being punished by the community? It is true that utilitarian equation was not "created" until the 18th century by Jeremy Bentham, the concept behind it is still old.

Many principes of the Bible and Qur'an can find its roots in Plato's texts. Indeed, when you look at the current organization of Iran's political system, which is a theocracy, you'll notice the similarities with his Ideal government.
Various greek thinkers and philosophers also greatly influenced Christianity. Islam is much more influenced by them due to the exodus after the Byzantine Emperor decided to get rid of them. It triggered the golden age of Islam.

Westerners also enjoy considering themselves of Christian heritage. It is quite true, but Christianity itself is no purely western concept. During the various wars and especially Alexander the Great's Hellenistic Empire, the exchange of ideas between the West and the East was anything but uncommon. The West gave to the East and vice-versa. This, of course, influenced the development of both Christianity and Islam.

In my "political message of the day part", remember that muslims and christians respected each other. In fact, there's Arab neighborhoods in several Italian port cities. Trading between muslisms and christian was always high. In September, Benedict XVI quoted a dialogue from a Byzantine Emperor. The quote was actually from a conversation between Manuel II and a Persian (muslim). They actually talked to each other. Now remember this kids, they got along pretty well back then.

I realize that some might bring up the Crusade argument. Except that the concept of "ethnic warfare" did not really exist back then. War was a political tool rather then an act of annihilation. Christianity and Islam, the religions, were used to differentiate two "empires". It wasn't all about "my religion is better then yours". It was more power play then anything else.

The second topic I'd like to get into is Pascal's wager. It would seem many Christians find that there's nothing to lose by believing in God. It would be a win-win situation. It's the basis of Pascal's reasoning.
I find it unfortunate that some would consider their faith as something so trivial as a wager. That was a bit too subjective for my taste but anyway...
If those coming up with that argument actually decide to take their research to the next level, they'd know the criticisms attributed to Pascal's wager. Aside from being accused of being "pro-religion", there are several flaws in his reasoning. The first one is that it assumes that Christianity is the "right" religion. What if Islam or Judaism was the right one? Instant hell for worshipping false idols. Another one is that it does not constitute a real faith. In other words, you don't really believe in God. You just abide to some principes but no real belief might ever come. There are other criticisms, but I thought that these were the most relevant.

To conclude this long post that most of you lazy kids won't read anyway (yeah, I didn't read the whole thread either, to hell with you all :xp: No pun intended), I'd like to say that I respect everyone's faith and beliefs. I don't see how you can believe something without evidence, me being skeptical by nature, but it's strong enough to make you fight for it. To answer Bimmerman's post, it is inevitable that Christians or anyother religious person are offended in such a debate. I know you're specifying by pointing your finger on those who flame. However, bringing reasoning and faith into a room always creates a highly volatile mixture. Reasoning and demands for evidence always constitute an attack on faith. Faith does not tolerate such attacks because faith cannot answer with the same weapons.

All in all, we have to stay peaceful and not enter some childish war between the faithful and the atheists.


P.S: I must say that I'm particularly impressed by JediMaster12's posts (at least those that I've read). They're really insightful :)

Totenkopf: Maybe you should have been taught by Jesuits like I have for a year. As far as I know, they taught religious subjects yes but they also encouraged the teaching of the secular sciences, the math and science. They are Catholics mind you but more liberal in terms of enlightened thought. They were persecuted by none other than the Catholic Church at times because their ideas threaten teachings or something. Funny thing was that the Jesuits were more successful at the Christian conversion of thye Indian groups in the New World than the Church.
I was taught by Jesuits lol, maybe they're to blame for my heresy?

@LIAYD: Thanks for the praise. My sorority sisters claim that I know a lot of 'stuff.' The kind of things that are informative and way out there. I do admit that I am a Christain and believe in it whole heartedly. However I was blessed with an inquisitive mind and I like to find out why things happen and so forth. Most of my information comes from personal and time passing research. My primary interest is in things involving religion and so forth with a regional focus in Mesoamerica.

Various greek thinkers and philosophers also greatly influenced Christianity. Islam is much more influenced by them due to the exodus after the Byzantine Emperor decided to get rid of them. It triggered the golden age of Islam.
Islam does have its influence from Christian thought. In fact an examination revealed that there are about 180 distinct passages referring to Jesus Christ. Most of what is in the Koran reflects upon Christianity and the like. This is interesting because the prophet Mohammed encountered Christians in his travels and in fact one of the stories goes that the archangel Michael or the angel Gabriel (getting mixed up) spoke the word from God or Allah to Mohammed hence is the month of fasting called Ramadan.

On a different note, religion and politics are not always mutually exclusive. People like the anthropologists, sociologists and the poly sci people have to break it down into the distinct barriers because it is easier to study. The fact of the matter is that even war was not exclusively political though the brunt of it was. An example is my studies on the Aztecs. Their socio-politico lives were ruled by the gods and the elements and the like. The calendar round specifically because each day was in some accordance to the gods. Rituals were not confined to religious matters because it in turn justified behavior in war. Human sacrifice was a way to pay the gods back for their 'borrowed' time here on earth. The support behind this is if you look at the geography. The Basin of Mexico is highly volcanic. There are earthquakes and threats of floods and the like. In war, the primary goal was to capture sacrifice victims because it was considerd the best and greatest honor if you were captured by the enemy and scrificed. You would then become one of the stars and be allowed to return as a hummingbird to enjoy the sweet nectars of the afterlife. The secondary part was to gain tribute. There are several codices that reflex tribute and domestic scenes. The best is the Codex Mendoza which my advisor Dr. Berdan worked on. To take another example: LIAYD stated that wars were political movements and the like and goes to mention the Crusades. True that some believed they were reclaiming the Holy Land from the Turks and that it was the will of God but it could be construed as a flexing of muscles. Later wars showed that it stopped being religious primarily and shifted towards the poltical.

Religion is a progression through time and it is a cultural entity. I have seen the similarities and the adaptations which goes to show how truly adaptive culture is in general. Religion is a general category and I once had the technical definition of it but I do remember that it isn't restricted to God, Yahweh or Allah but that it states a god or gods is a central focus. Aethists claim to not believe in God but for example they believe in the explaining power of science. Now using the definition (I'll post it when I find it) science can be contsrued as a god that they believe in. There you go a religion of science so to speak. It's grossly oversimplified but that is the working definition that I know anthropologists use when conducting their studies. Religion is the core of beliefs that you share with other people who express the same thought. I admit we all have our biases and we see that in modern racism. It's virtually impossible to get a truly objective person to view the world without bias.

As LIAYD said that they respect everyone's beliefs and faith I do as well. I may not agree with you but I am a willing listener to different views.


@Negative_Sun: I wouldn't say you are a heretic. Heck someone said I questioned the mainstream and I was once called a hippie but I'm not that old. I'm too young for that. :)
If it makes you fell better, I get the talk concerning my faith from my dad, conservative Catholic, every two weeks.

Whew. I think I talk too much so I'll stop for now.

But you didn't answer my question, so you can be the best, most noble person ever, and you will still end up in Hell for not believing in God?
The best, most noble person ever will still not measure up to God's standard of perfection required for entering Heaven. That is why He had to intervene by sending His Son, the only one who lived a life perfect enough to meet God's standard, to pay the penalty for all humanity on the Cross.

Cowards! Ignoring all my points! :xp:

@LIAYD- I realize the all-too-common result of faith and reason mixing is never good, I was just contemplating as to why it always results that way. But I digress. (And yes, I did read your whole post.)

I found a quote that I believe sums up the non-believers' arguments quite succinctly:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"
-Stephen Roberts

I figure that most of the rhetoric has already been said and is just being rehashed by everyone, so continuing down that road is an exercise in futility. While I haven't found a quote for the believer side that doesn't stem from a holy text, I have not found a more apt quote for the opposing side for this thread.

And yes, I am deliberately keeping as neutral as I can in this debate so that my reasoning rather than my beliefs are the subject of my post, and that my reasoning will neither attacked nor be dismissed because of my beliefs but rather on the merits of the reasoning.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"
-Stephen Roberts

Interesting quote you have there Bimmerman. Have you considered the possiblity of what I mentioned concerning religion in terms of the working definition that I hinted at. I am still looking for the original quote. The funny thing is that when you read it, it is confusing a bit and that is mainly because religion is a portion of culture and culture itself is difficult to define.
Still I admire that you are trying to use your reasoning as a basis for the arguments however I would like to say that to completely eradicate your beliefs from your arguments is futile at best. It has to do with your view of the world.

@ED: What comments are you referring to?

Still I admire that you are trying to use your reasoning as a basis for the arguments however I would like to say that to completely eradicate your beliefs from your arguments is futile at best. It has to do with your view of the world.


Indeed. As one into social science, I realize that pure objectivity is simply impossible. You must understand, Bimmerman, that your reasoning is not more flawed then another one because of your world view. A chinese man will have a different view on Europe then a european person and that is natural. His reasoning, however, is not at any rate less just and well constructed (if it is indeed just and well constructed).

This is not a case of "exact science" where either something is or is not. JediMaster12 (a Christian) and me (an atheist with some buddhist background) can analyse correctly the same event yet from two different angles. Neither him or me will be more right then the other, if we both offer valid arguments.

All in all, when touching social sciences, the scientist is automatically under the effects of his own personnal bias. No matter how hard you try to hide it under veil of neutrality, your argumentation through your reasoning will automatically show your "allegiance" to one side or another. As a human, you cannot be truly objective.

Interesting quote you have there Bimmerman. Have you considered the possiblity of what I mentioned concerning religion in terms of the working definition that I hinted at. I am still looking for the original quote. The funny thing is that when you read it, it is confusing a bit and that is mainly because religion is a portion of culture and culture itself is difficult to define.


Good points! Your definition of religion is one I wholeheartedly agree with as more a system of beliefs than anything else. Atheists(I wouldn't necessarily call myself one) do tend to ignore the fact that their belief in science(or in no god) is more or less analagous to faith in a higher power.

Atheists(I wouldn't necessarily call myself one) do tend to ignore the fact that their belief in science(or in no god) is more or less analagous to faith in a higher power.

Incorrect. Faith is belief without evidence. Science is the exact opposite.

Science does rely a lot on speculation though, because we assume things can only be one way because that's the only way we see...
For example, scientists will believe in the Big Bang theory because it is the only way to explain an expanding universe (in their opinion), but I (still an atheist) think there might be another explanation, but I don't know which, I think scientists are afraid of the "I don' know" phrase and try to guess and speculate and assume their theories are right...
A lot of things in science are just theories, or just things we know work some way because we have observed it and assume there is some mechanism behind it that we can understand...
I keep an open mind and say there are different possibilities to everything in life, and I like discussing them, I don't strictly believe in faith, nor do I strictly believe in science to bring me all the answers, sometimes you just have to let your imagination free and step back from what you think you know for sure.
[/end preach]

@Negative_Sun: I wouldn't say you are a heretic. Heck someone said I questioned the mainstream and I was once called a hippie but I'm not that old. I'm too young for that. :)
If it makes you fell better, I get the talk concerning my faith from my dad, conservative Catholic, every two weeks.
I was only joking lol and it;s good to keep an open mind, no matter what you believe in...

@ED: What comments are you referring to?

Some of the ones on a previous page addressed to Jimbo and Jae. Cowards! :xp:

Look, I know you don't like God. However, the implication that He is a 'b*stard' is really rather upsetting to me. I know you don't like Him. I'm not asking you to like Him or even respect Him. But I'm trying hard to handle your points with respect and the expletives are making it harder. Could you do me the favor of not connecting God with expletives?
God deserves expletives he has not been a very good God recently in human history.
It has failed many people trust over the centuries of human existence.




You asked this question:


You accuse Him of crimes against humanity for killing people arbitrarily. But you're assuming that He's killed people. I'm saying He has not killed people, but rather taken them from this world to be with Him. Since they exist with Him and have not been killed, then He cannot be guilty of murder or crimes against humanity.He do killed people, he should be responsible for his crimes.
Not everyone want to live with him in la la land that people called Heaven.
I for one hate God with a passion, so I am not one of those who want to live with that.
People don't like to see their entire family destroyed and hear religious people say it was God will or it was his plan to do so.
God is definitely hitting a zero respect to the merciful God belief.





The same with God--He's not going to force anyone to love Him if they don't want to.
Why would it create something that hates it?
And keep the the thing that hates it.
If God is all knowing, which I mean by knowing the future.
If God know or already known the path of one of it's creations that later on fell to the darkside, like Hitler for example.
Why didn't he stop him or while he was on his path to the darkside change that path that lead to his evil?
The crimes of the Holocaust was God responsibility too.
And I wish I could punish him for his lack apathy respect to the the evil that had a field day with murdering with no impunity.

Some of the ones on a previous page addressed to Jimbo and Jae. Cowards! :xp:

No, just very, very busy with a board meeting last weekend and the work leading up to it, and some of the fallout that happened as a result. And I had to wait for a book by William Lane Craig to come in. :)

Jimbo's watching the Cardinals in the World Series. He'll be back after they win. :D

@windu6--most people who hate God to that degree do so because they've been very badly hurt by someone who professed to be 'religious'. I'm sorry if that's happened to you, or to anyone else here.

No, just very, very busy with a board meeting last weekend and the work leading up to it, and some of the fallout that happened as a result. And I had to wait for a book by William Lane Craig to come in. :)

Good, for I shall pester you to no end if you back out. I leave no debate unfinished. :xp:

Indeed. As one into social science, I realize that pure objectivity is simply impossible. You must understand, Bimmerman, that your reasoning is not more flawed then another one because of your world view. A chinese man will have a different view on Europe then a european person and that is natural. His reasoning, however, is not at any rate less just and well constructed (if it is indeed just and well constructed).
In anthropology we call this ethnocentrism. It is unavoidable but there are ways to reduce that especially when reporting findings. I am actually getting into the whole seeing it from the insider/outsider point of view right there.
For future reference LIAYD, I am of the female gender. I understand my username doesn't convey this well. :)

A lot of things in science are just theories, or just things we know work some way because we have observed it and assume there is some mechanism behind it that we can understand...

To clarify, science disproves not proves. In science, the thing with the higher regard is the theory. It has explanatory power over a law and a hypothesis. I am going to take evolution for an example so don't bite my head off anyone. Darwin came up with a theory called natural selection based upon his observation of the natural world. That science is based on observation you are right GodSlayer. To support that he also looked at the work going on with genetics, physiology, etc. Now taking the statement that science disproves, look at all the evidence that has been uncovered from the evolution of the horse to Homo habilis, Homo erectus and the Neandertals. Everything that we have uncovered supports natural selection; it hasn't disproven evolution yet and probably never will as long as we keep uncovering new evidence.

Why would it create something that hates it?
And keep the the thing that hates it.

From my belief, God made men and free will. Free will is our undoing. Your example of Hitler is an exhibition of Hitler's free will to persecute the Jews. Why he was concerned with this master Aryan race is beyond me since Aryan is nothing more than linguistics thing going on. The point is we have free will and we have the choice to do what we call good and evil. It ultimately comes down to what we decide. The moral compass can only point you in the right direction but it doesn't force you to go down that road.

@windu6--most people who hate God to that degree do so because they've been very badly hurt by someone who professed to be 'religious'. I'm sorry if that's happened to you, or to anyone else here.

I am sorry too that you have much hate in your heart. Maybe one day you'll let the love back in.


EDIT: I actually found my definition on religion. I am pleased to admit that I have made a grievious error in what it was. I will post it now.

A religion is a system of symbolswhich acts to establish powerful, persuasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in [human beings] by formulating coceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.
This was coined by American anthropologist Clifford Geertz. To clearly explain, he is using a system model. By doing this he is is saying that religion is a system. It is actually a system within the system of culture. Human beings live in a world that is not only defined by material objects but by emotions, values and ideas (Arngrosino 2004: 6-7).

Different denominations of Christianity have very different views, to the point where they start claiming others are not christian.

For future reference LIAYD, I am of the female gender. I understand my username doesn't convey this well. :)


Damn avatar :xp:

Damn avatar :xp:

Variations on a theme of having opposite gender avatars. :D

Yes I am exploring my masculinity though I am very much the female. :D

Different denominations of Christianity have very different views, to the point where they start claiming others are not christian.
Yes that has happened. Biblically speaking, there is a warning to watch out for false priest and charaltans than may claim to promote His name but in fact are not. The sad thing is that we often hear about these groups that we call cults through the news. If you look at the technical definition that I posted, these cults are part of a system that conveys moods and motivations. The sad part is that they actually believe it to be true like the aliens coming to take them up in their space ship or something.

I cannot see why religion needs to be debated. God did not hold a voting session, and then ask: "What rules do you wish to follow?". You either follow your God or you don't. I seriously could careless about your salvation. You are responsible for your own. I will not bash another person's beliefs, nor will I hold a debate to disprove or prove your God's existance. No one should have to defend their beliefs in a forums like this, and they should not be provoked into creating an arguement.

Every religion on Earth has darksides, which people could debate about for generations. I have done and continue to do extensive research on Christianity, for I was brought up as a Catholic. Eventhough I am a lay-Catholic and Born Again, I don't have all the answers to the serious biblical answers. I can understand its history, science, etc... I could also speculate about phenomenon issues, which surround religion's conroversial stigmata, crying Mary statues, etc... I am versed in literature, which could have influenced the Bible. However, I will not enforce what I believe to be true or not onto others.

God is god. You either believe in him, or you don't believe in him.

----------

One can also take note that Negative_Sun changed his name to GodSlayer. This brings up questions about his agenda in this thread.