Religion 101 Final Exam

[AngusJS]

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/guestessays/religion101.html

Some of these are unfair, but some are pretty good. My favorites are:

You are a product tester and frequently bring your work home. Yesterday, while dressed in a flame resistant suit (up to 3,000 degrees) and carrying the latest model fire extinguisher, you discover your neighbor's house is on fire. As the flames quickly spread, you stand and watch your neighbor's new baby burn to death. Which of the following best describes your behavior?
All-powerful
All-knowing
All-loving
MysteriousAlthough you are new at golf, you have just hit a beautiful 200-yard drive and your ball has landed on a blade of grass near the cup at Hole 3. The green contains ten million blades of grass. The odds of your ball landing on that blade of grass are 10,000,000 to one against, too improbable to have happened by mere chance. What's the explanation?
The wind guided it
Your muscles guided it
There is no need for an explanation
You consciously designed your shot to land on that particular bladeWe know that Christianity is true because the Gospel writers, inspired by God who can make no error, recorded the founding events. For example, on the first Easter morning, the visitors to the tomb were greeted by which of the following:
A young man (Mark 16:5)
No, no, it was no man, it was an angel (Matthew 28:2-5)
You're both wrong, it was two men (Luke 24:4)
Damn it, there was nobody there (John 20:1-2)

[Frame57]

What is taught in regards to this and other similar comparisons of the text is that people do not account for time. Those that visited the tomb did not all arrive at the same time, hence they all could have indeed encountered different scenarios.

[AngusJS]

What is taught in regards to this and other similar comparisons of the text is that people do not account for time. Those that visited the tomb did not all arrive at the same time, hence they all could have indeed encountered different scenarios.

I think that's pretty problematic.

How many women came to the sepulchre?

One John 20:1 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/20.html#1)
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Two Matthew 28:1 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/28.html#1)
As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Three Mark 16:1 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mk/16.html#1)
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

Five or more Luke 24:1, 10 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lk/24.html#1)
Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
...
It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/women_sepulchre.html

Notice how John, Matthew and Luke all say that this occurs sometime early on the first day of the week.

And even if you ignore that, in order to have all four different events be true, you have to have Mary Magdalene make four different trips, and have her witness four different circumstances, and then have each gospel writer choose a particular trip about which to write, while ignoring the others.

Is that possible? Yeah... but is it likely? Anyone can rationalize to save their favorite idea from evidence or arguments which dispute it. In any other sphere but religion, this would be a sign that there are problems with that idea. For religion, it's par for the course.

[Aramike]

I've seen these kinds of things before. While I don't ascribe to religion, they are clearly loaded (and not too smart) questions designed to haphazardly support the argument that religion is fundamentally flawed.

Rather, any serious thinker would see that the questions themselves are flawed. For instance:Although you are new at golf, you have just hit a beautiful 200-yard drive and your ball has landed on a blade of grass near the cup at Hole 3. The green contains ten million blades of grass. The odds of your ball landing on that blade of grass are 10,000,000 to one against, too improbable to have happened by mere chance. What's the explanation?What is conveniently side-stepped is that, a ball landing on the green has a 1:1 chance of hitting a blade of grass. Also, the golfer specifically controlled that outcome.1) Which of the following is the most compelling evidence for the existence of an intelligent and loving Designer?



A Caribbean sunset
The screams of a baby seal as it is torn apart by a shark
The first time your perfect new baby smiles at you
The speed of the Ebola virus converting an African child's organs into liquidThis is another loaded question. The existance of evil is the only thing that can confirm the presense of good.

One can go on and on. Here's another gem:One day while jogging in the park, you see a maniac with a butcher knife about to attack a six-year old girl. Which would be the most morally proper action to take?



Grab the nearest rock and beat off the attacker
Call the police on your cell phone
Yell "POLICE!" and run toward the attacker in a threatening manner
Calmly walk away, because God works in mysterious ways, and what appears "evil" to our finite human mind, may in fact be part of a vaster plan in God's infinite mind, so it's best not to interfere What if God's plan was for you to interfere with option A, B, or C? Or, what if God doesn't have a plan for the situation at all? Wouldn't being unable to NOT have a plan be an odd limitation to impose upon an all-powerful deity?

One could write a similar "quiz" in support of any ideology they wish.

[Frame57]

One record that you guys can have fun with are the gospel record dealing with the crucifixion itself. If memory serves me right i think three of the four gospels have it. Anyway if you read each one you will see interesting differences like when they cast the lots for the garment, when the two other were led either before or after jesus. when they placed the accusation over his head etc.. They differ quite a bit. But what casts some light on the matter is that the greek word for the two others are different greek words in each gospel. meaning that four were crucified with him and not just two. One set of two was led before him and one set of two after him. This semantically is accurate with the greek text. the four gospels must be read as a unit to get the entire picture. This is called scripture build up in theological circles.

[AngusJS]

I've seen these kinds of things before. While I don't ascribe to religion, they are clearly loaded (and not too smart) questions designed to haphazardly support the argument that religion is fundamentally flawed.
This is satire. It doesn't have to be 100% ironclad.

Rather, any serious thinker would see that the questions themselves are flawed. For instance:Although you are new at golf, you have just hit a beautiful 200-yard drive and your ball has landed on a blade of grass near the cup at Hole 3. The green contains ten million blades of grass. The odds of your ball landing on that blade of grass are 10,000,000 to one against, too improbable to have happened by mere chance. What's the explanation?What is conveniently side-stepped is that, a ball landing on the green has a 1:1 chance of hitting a blade of grass. Also, the golfer specifically controlled that outcome.

This is just lampooning theists who say it takes more faith to believe that, the universe came to be the way it is through blind chance than it does to believe in a creator.

To remove any chance of an actor influencing the event, forget the golf example and just think of a gigantic automated Plinko board 10 miles high with a billion slots at the bottom. You could have the theist who makes this argument hit a button which releases a disc at the top, which eventually falls into a slot. When he reports that the disc fell in slot # whatever, you could, with the same incredulity he voiced, question how the disc could have fallen in that slot by mere chance - after all, it was a billion to one. Some other intelligent force must be involved. Obviously there was a 1:1 chance that the disc would fall into a slot. The point is that theists always forget that.



1) Which of the following is the most compelling evidence for the existence of an intelligent and loving Designer?
A Caribbean sunset
The screams of a baby seal as it is torn apart by a shark
The first time your perfect new baby smiles at you
The speed of the Ebola virus converting an African child's organs into liquidThis is another loaded question. The existance of evil is the only thing that can confirm the presense of good.
I disagree. The existence of good is predicated on the existence of evil only if you choose to define either as the opposite of the other, i.e. good is that which is not evil. But such a definition is circular, and therefore uninformative.

If you define good as that which leads to a state in which there is no physical or emotional pain, and evil as that which leads to a state where the opposite is true, then it is possible in principle to have an only-good world. In fact, with advancements in medical science such as the eradication of smallpox, we're already on our way. Granted, as soon as you reach the state where there is no more pain, then pain will lose its meaning, but that doesn't mean the lack of pain will cease to exist.

One can go on and on. Here's another gem:One day while jogging in the park, you see a maniac with a butcher knife about to attack a six-year old girl. Which would be the most morally proper action to take?
Grab the nearest rock and beat off the attacker
Call the police on your cell phone
Yell "POLICE!" and run toward the attacker in a threatening manner
Calmly walk away, because God works in mysterious ways, and what appears "evil" to our finite human mind, may in fact be part of a vaster plan in God's infinite mind, so it's best not to interfereWhat if God's plan was for you to interfere with option A, B, or C? Or, what if God doesn't have a plan for the situation at all? Wouldn't being unable to NOT have a plan be an odd limitation to impose upon an all-powerful deity?
I really don't see what you're getting at. What if the creator is in fact a lump of flying spaghetti. But no theist says that, whereas as some theists do say "who are we finite beings to question the infinite god?" You seriously have never heard that line trotted out for any tragedy that comes along? This is just a reductio ad absurdum argument, stating that if it really is true that god does allow bad things to happen for reasons unknowable to us, then a theist would be perfectly justified in choosing the fourth option. Obviously anyone would want to say it's immoral, but how can they if god works in mysterious ways? Maybe option 4 is for the greater good in god's plan.

One could write a similar "quiz" in support of any ideology they wish.
One certainly could. Please show me the ideology which makes claims that are more fantastic, and which has less evidence and reason to back them up, and then states that it posseses something akin to the Mystery of Faith immunity idol whenever it is questioned. As religion does all those things, I think it most assuredly deserves to be the object of satire.

[Aramike]

This is just lampooning theists who say it takes more faith to believe that, the universe came to be the way it is through blind chance than it does to believe in a creator. The point is, why bother?Please show me the ideology which makes claims that are more fantastic, and which has less evidence and reason to back them up, and then states that it posseses something akin to the Mystery of Faith immunity idol whenever it is questioned. As religion does all those things, I think it most assuredly deserves to be the object of satire.Again, why bother?

Until you have the answers and evidence to prove them your beliefs have no more intellectual validity than any others. So, why bother?

Quite frankly, I find many atheists to often be more "dingbatted" than many followers of religion. What's the point of your incitefulness? One can no more prove that there is no deity than one can prove that there is.

So, again, why bother?

[joegrundman]

This is just lampooning theists who say it takes more faith to believe that, the universe came to be the way it is through blind chance than it does to believe in a creator. The point is, why bother?Please show me the ideology which makes claims that are more fantastic, and which has less evidence and reason to back them up, and then states that it posseses something akin to the Mystery of Faith immunity idol whenever it is questioned. As religion does all those things, I think it most assuredly deserves to be the object of satire.Again, why bother?

Until you have the answers and evidence to prove them your beliefs have no more intellectual validity than any others. So, why bother?

Quite frankly, I find many atheists to often be more "dingbatted" than many followers of religion. What's the point of your incitefulness? One can no more prove that there is no deity than one can prove that there is.

So, again, why bother?

que? That's your "serious thinker" mode, is it?

[Rockstar]

One record that you guys can have fun with are the gospel record dealing with the crucifixion itself. If memory serves me right i think three of the four gospels have it. Anyway if you read each one you will see interesting differences like when they cast the lots for the garment, when the two other were led either before or after jesus. when they placed the accusation over his head etc.. They differ quite a bit. But what casts some light on the matter is that the greek word for the two others are different greek words in each gospel. meaning that four were crucified with him and not just two. One set of two was led before him and one set of two after him. This semantically is accurate with the greek text. the four gospels must be read as a unit to get the entire picture. This is called scripture build up in theological circles.


All gospels have them parting his garment after Yeshua was crucified and casting lots for it as prophecied 600 years prior to the event (Psalms 22).

As far as the number crucified with Yeshua there were 2

Mathew 27:38 Then were there two theeues crucified with him: one on the right hand, and another on the left.

Mark 15:27 And with him they crucifie two theeues, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.

Luke 23:32 And there were also two other malefactors led with him, to bee put to death.

John 19:18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Iesus in the middest.

<edit> The Greek word δύo (duo) defined as a primary numeral; "two": - both, twain, two. Is used to describe the number crucified with Yeshua in all four books. The other events are in order throughout.

Of those δύo one joined the side of the mob in order to gain their favor but died with them the other believed the truth and lives. As it is written

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Luke 23:39-43



AngusJS Im not quite sure what the argument is concerning the timeline of events at the tomb are but would be happy to discuss it with you.


.

[Aramike]

que? That's your "serious thinker" mode, is it?Do you have an actual comment about it or are you simply trying to make an odd implication?

One minor correction:I disagree. The existence of good is predicated on the existence of evil only if you choose to define either as the opposite of the other, i.e. good is that which is not evil. But such a definition is circular, and therefore uninformative.You are correct. I chose my words poorly.

What I should have said is that "good" cannot exist without that which is NOT "good". This principle of perception applies to pretty much everything.

Either way, the basis of my argument still stands.

[NeonSamurai]

Personally I'm not convinced good or evil exist apart from us, its more of a label humans apply to things that are beneficial or harmful to themselves or their world view, then some force in the universe. Especially that one person's evil is another's good.

Anyhow that link is pretty dumb, lots of loaded questions and fallacious reasoning, lampoon or not.

[Frame57]

You will see that some of the records state that two were led before him and in another record they were led after him. This is a contradiction. The greek words I am referencing here is Duo Lestai and Duo Kakourgos. They are two different things grammatically. One is a far worse criminal than the other. So if grammar means anything to the serious biblical student and you paint the picture using all the gospel records you see that yes 4 were crucified with Jesus. Also note that two reviled jesus on the cross and that of the other group only one did and the other was repentant.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/star4ucker/religion.jpg

I lol'd.:haha:

[Platapus]

Kinda makes fighting over religion a bit silly don't it :yep:

[Rockstar]

You will see that some of the records state that two were led before him and in another record they were led after him. This is a contradiction. The greek words I am referencing here is Duo Lestai and Duo Kakourgos. They are two different things grammatically. One is a far worse criminal than the other. So if grammar means anything to the serious biblical student and you paint the picture using all the gospel records you see that yes 4 were crucified with Jesus. Also note that two reviled jesus on the cross and that of the other group only one did and the other was repentant.

Those two words do not describe two different crimminal acts, which if it did, I suppose could lead someone to think they might be speaking of four different people. However upon investigation though δύο λῃστης (dou lēstēs) translated simply means 'two theives' and δύο κακοῦργος (dou kakourgos) mean 'two malefactors'

A thief is one who secretly, unlawfully and feloniously takes the goods or personal property of another. The thief takes the property of another privately; the robber by open force.

A malefactor is one who commits a crime; one guilty of violating the laws, in such a manner as to subject him to public prosecution and punishment, particularly to capital punishment; a criminal.

Each of the four Gospels were written by four different people each giving a testimoney of the things they witnessed seeing and or hearing. Hence the reason why we call it a 'testimoney' or 'witness'. In certain Gospels (Mathew, Mark) it was known the dou crucified with Yeshua were sentenced to death as theives. To another witness (Luke) the duo were known only as malefactors. Which I suspect was because the nature of their crime was most likely not known to him and he did not assume to know. John on the otherhand did not identify either of the men according to their deeds rather he only refers to them as "and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst".


Keep in mind too back then 'in biblical times' in that region, depending on who and or from what the thief had stolen from he could receive the death penalty for his actions, just as these two malefactors did. To receive such a sentence they would have probably had to steal items from the palace or temple.


I hope that made sense


.

[AngusJS]

AngusJS Im not quite sure what the argument is concerning the timeline of events at the tomb are but would be happy to discuss it with you.
My argument is that each gospel gives a contradictory account of the empty tomb story, and that this shows that the bible is not inerrant. Frame57 suggested this:

What is taught in regards to this and other similar comparisons of the text is that people do not account for time. Those that visited the tomb did not all arrive at the same time, hence they all could have indeed encountered different scenarios.
I tried to show that this doesn't work in this case, as three of the gospels have the women arriving at the scene at roughly the same time. And if you're still going to say that each account is accurate, then Mary Magdalene has to go to the tomb 4 times- once alone to see no one there, another time with the other Mary to see an angel, another time with the other Mary and Salome to see a young man, and then another time to be in the group of at least 5 and see two men.

You could say that in fact, all the people and events mentioned in the four different stories were there, and it's just that the gospel's authors decided to focus in on only certain elements. This makes sense for trivial details like if they were carrying spice or not, but I don't buy it for important details such as who first heard the "good news" and from whom did they hear it.

In any other context, anyone hearing stories with such contradictions would think that at least one was wrong. It's only when you absolutely must maintain the inerrancy of the stories despite evidence to the contrary that you would provide such strained interpretations to save them.

[AngusJS]

What I should have said is that "good" cannot exist without that which is NOT "good". This principle of perception applies to pretty much everything.

Either way, the basis of my argument still stands.
Replacing "evil" with "not good" doesn't fix the problem, as it still seems that "not good" still must refer to "good" for meaning. Which I guess means that this level of abstraction is fruitless. Or at least that's how it appears to me now at two in the morning.

Until you have the answers and evidence to prove them your beliefs have no more intellectual validity than any others. So, why bother?
They're the ones making the claim, and it's impossible to prove a negative. All that you can do is point out problems with the claim based on evidence and reason, which some of those questions did, and in a humorous manner.

Why do it? Because this a forum, and it's enjoyable. Plus, constructive criticism can only help the claimant improve the claim he's making. I've certainly changed my mind on various subjects thanks to threads on other forums, thus "improving" (from my POV) my thinking.

[Aramike]

What I should have said is that "good" cannot exist without that which is NOT "good". This principle of perception applies to pretty much everything.

Either way, the basis of my argument still stands.
Replacing "evil" with "not good" doesn't fix the problem, as it still seems that "not good" still must refer to "good" for meaning. Which I guess means that this level of abstraction is fruitless. Or at least that's how it appears to me now at two in the morning.

Until you have the answers and evidence to prove them your beliefs have no more intellectual validity than any others. So, why bother?
They're the ones making the claim, and it's impossible to prove a negative. All that you can do is point out problems with the claim based on evidence and reason, which some of those questions did, and in a humorous manner.

Why do it? Because this a forum, and it's enjoyable. Plus, constructive criticism can only help the claimant improve the claim he's making. I've certainly changed my mind on various subjects thanks to threads on other forums, thus "improving" (from my POV) my thinking.I didn't realize that it was incumbent upon you (or any atheist) to challenge people's faiths in order to help them refine their belief systems.

As for them making the claims, it seems you started the thread...

I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint, however. What I do disagree is your presentation of it, which is clearly an attempt to poke fun at the most treasured beliefs of others. They don't HAVE to prove anything to anyone.

What I find fascinating is this complete hatred some athiests have of religion. I look at it a tad differently. I believe it is a beautiful thing when one surrenders themself to an absolute moral authority, especially when said authority represents what is best our very nature.

Sure, I may not agree with their views 100%, but ridiculing them is clearly inciteful and meaningless.

You said it: you can't prove a negative. So why bother?

[Letum]

You said it: you can't prove a negative. So why bother?

"Negatives do not require proof"
is a little closer to the mark than "you can't prove a negative".

Rather than:
1) 'E' has not been proved
2) Thus 'E' is false

We should say:

1) 'E' should be considered true if (and only if) proved
2) 'E' has not been proved

[Aramike]

You said it: you can't prove a negative. So why bother?

"Negatives do not require proof"
is a little closer to the mark than "you can't prove a negative".

Rather than:
1) 'E' has not been proved
2) Thus 'E' is false

We should say:

1) 'E' should be considered true if (and only if) proved
2) 'E' has not been provedI was actually echoing what AngusJS said regarding negatives.

In any case, "you can't prove a negative" is an accurate statement in that it applies to those who make a claim then say "prove it doesn't exist", although it really only applies to the metaphysical. For instance, one could lie and say that they have 200 bars of gold buried in their yard. A simple excavation would prove this inaccurate.

Perhaps it is best said that one cannot prove a negative if it is not of a physical nature.

[AngusJS]

I didn't realize that it was incumbent upon you (or any atheist) to challenge people's faiths in order to help them refine their belief systems.
Please show me where I said I or anyone else have to challenge someone else's beliefs.

As for them making the claims, it seems you started the thread...Obviously I was referring to the theism/atheism debate in general.

I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint, however. What I do disagree is your presentation of it, which is clearly an attempt to poke fun at the most treasured beliefs of others. They don't HAVE to prove anything to anyone.
I don't think beliefs should be given a pass just because they're treasured. Are you saying that if it was the cherished belief of a Republican on this board that Obama is a communist, I or anyone else can't take issue with that? What's the point of having a discussion board at all?

What I find fascinating is this complete hatred some athiests have of religion. I look at it a tad differently.I love many examples of religious art, architecture and music, and I find some religious rituals interesting to observe. The only aspects of religion that I really can't stand are the indoctrination of children and the promotion of faith.

I believe it is a beautiful thing when one surrenders themself to an absolute moral authority, especially when said authority represents what is best our very nature. The problem arises when the absolute moral authority promotes some of the very worst of our nature. It's a shame those treasured beliefs shouldn't be challenged. :roll:

Sure, I may not agree with their views 100%, but ridiculing them is clearly inciteful and meaningless.

Satire can never be meaningful?

You said it: you can't prove a negative. So why bother?
:damn: Because it's a DISCUSSION FORUM, you know, where people come to DISCUSS things.

My thread title and the bit I quoted indicated what the link was. If you don't want to read it, then don't.

[Letum]

For instance, one could lie and say that they have 200 bars of gold buried in their yard. A simple excavation would prove this inaccurate.
I'm not so sure that is a different case.
You have not proved there is no gold in the garden, you just haven't found any despite
your excavation.


You have not found evidence for no gold; you have found no evidence for gold.
In the same way we can not find evidence for no god, only no evidence for god.

[Aramike]

Please show me where I said I or anyone else have to challenge someone else's beliefs.Please show me where I said otherwise.Obviously I was referring to the theism/atheism debate in general.Clearly.

But you chose the engagement.I don't think beliefs should be given a pass just because they're treasured."Given a pass"? You can't be serious!

What "pass" are these beliefs seeking from people like you?Are you saying that if it was the cherished belief of a Republican on this board that Obama is a communist, I or anyone else can't take issue with that? What's the point of having a discussion board at all?"Taking issue" is one thing. Glibly making fun is quite another.

Especially when you START the conversation with the rebuttal. :haha: I love many examples of religious art, architecture and music, and I find some religious rituals interesting to observe. The only aspects of religion that I really can't stand are the indoctrination of children and the promotion of faith.So, your position of not being able to "stand" something is somehow more justifiable than a faith itself?

I can't stand people of intolerence, seemingly such as yourself.

As for the "indoctrination" of children, here's something else I can't stand: people who bitch about things but offer no solution. What, you think you can somehow stop parents from passing along their beliefs? Riiiight...The problem arises when the absolute moral authority promotes some of the very worst of our nature. It's a shame those treasured beliefs shouldn't be challenged. :roll:I actually agree with this, and have been consistant with my posts on specific instances on this very board.

However, I do not feel the need to generalize it all as "bad", as you obviously do.Satire can never be meaningful?I didn't say that. I don't know how your particular choice of satire reflects all of satire, though.Because it's a DISCUSSION FORUM, you know, where people come to DISCUSS things.So it's okay to discuss things, except the discussion itself? :doh: My thread title and the bit I quoted indicated what the link was. If you don't want to read it, then don't.Ah, typical lefty. Freedom of speech applies whenever an inciteful statement or discussion occurs. But, freedom of speech does NOT apply when someone calls them out on that discussion.

HAH!

[Aramike]

I'm not so sure that is a different case.
You have not proved there is no gold in the garden, you just haven't found any despite
your excavation.


You have not found evidence for no gold; you have found no evidence for gold.
In the same way we can not find evidence for no god, only no evidence for god.You're kind of stretching now...

Okay, let's make it simpler. Let's say there is a box. Within that box someone claims that there are diamonds. Upon opening the box, the entire volume of said box is filled with nothing but air. That is, indeed, proof that there are no diamonds in the box.

[geetrue]

Faith is faith ... you either believe or you don't believe.

Starting my car in sub zero weather takes a lot of faith lol

All analytical people seem to have the same problem ...

They are either right or wrong :yep:

[Stealth Hunter]

http://4chanarchive.org/images/117605761/1234784320817.jpg

[A Very Super Market]

He-heh-heh

I love it!

[CaptainHaplo]

Actually Aramike - you could take that "empty" box and open it and say HA - no diamonds - to which a person of faith could point out that the air inside said box contains portions of carbon - the same substance of which diamonds are made. While it may not be VISIBLE to you, diamonds do exist in the box. They are simply not in a form you RECOGNIZE as diamonds.

Spiritually/metaphysically/whatever other term you want to use - the facts are no matter how much you may see - the building blocks are ENERGY. The positive proton, the neutral neutron, and the negative electron. Each atom working in concert with each other - and we still don't understand how or why exactly. But the fact is that if you took an atom with one p/e pair, added another p/e pair - you changed what that atom "is" - and all you really did was modify its mass and electrical charge. *Don't even get me started on Ions and such*

If you see everything as simply energy - the rock is the same as water - just in a different form - or electrical state. Sure this is a VERY basic explanation, but when you get down to the low levels of substance structure - they are made up of the same stuff. Its all energy in motion - just different "charges" or speeds.

So many try to say "Well you can't prove God exists" - or "Well you can't prove He/She/It doesnt", that they lose the beauty of this realm with wasted arguments. I don't have to prove God exists, not to Angus or anyone else. I have enough proof for ME personally, and thats all I need. I see that proof in the things that science can not only NOT explain, but those things that defy every known law of science observed since humanity has been able to record scientific findings. Look at the power of splitting a mere atom - look at the fact that by rights, atoms themselves defy scientific explanation under currently understood physics (since a positive and negative charge would attract and thus cancel each other out - instead of one continually orbiting the other....), etc etc. I need look no further than science to see the wonderful DESIGN of this universe and realize that its complexity is well beyond the human mind to be fully understood. Science is a quest for knowledge - and religion is often the same. They need not be mutually exclusive - though many Athiests feel they should.

The reason Athiests so want to deny a Deity, is because that would make them less than the penultimate being. Pride is a stumbling block for many, but for those that would deny Deity, I would simply point to this world and say, my - how we have so created a paradise by being the "highest being". It is a hard and bitter pill, but if nothing else - humanities failures and we still exist is also a wonderful example of a "higher" hand.

Edit - for those that want to quote science - allow me to remind you of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy - no matter or energy can be created or destroyed - it simply changes form. This law is an amazing statement on the spiritual soul and its relationship to your "living" consciousness - you WILL exist after your physical body dies - so science itself has claimed. One can argue whether or not "you" (being the consciousness in some form) will exist - but there is no way science can prove or disprove that. It simply states that some form of you will exist for all time. People of faith simply expect that form to be one that has a level of awareness in some way. Before you ridicule that, you may want to realize that even things that were deemed "not conscious" years ago (like plants) - have been found to communicate and even reactions that denote intellegence without a known scientific explanation.
See http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/1160/ for an example. Just because science has a theory on something yesterday, or today, or tommorow - does not mean that understanding cannot mature. Do not ridicule just because you cannot fathom it. Your mind is finite. Seek knowledge - and you will find. Be it science, or theology. The wise man seeks to learn, and not merely mock.

[antikristuseke]

CaptainHaplo, your knowlege of particle physics is out of date by a few decades.

As for your last point, you are wrong. I as an atheist, and all atheists I have spoken to, are not disbelievers because we want to belive to be the highest form in existance but because there simply is no evidence for any diety. That is all there is to it, I am not saying that there can be no god, I am saying there is no reason to belive that there is a god, though should evidence come to light I will change my position. This is the position of any self respecting atheist.

[AngusJS]

But you chose the engagement.
So?

"Given a pass"? You can't be serious!

What "pass" are these beliefs seeking from people like you?
I think all beliefs, including atheism, are open to criticism, no matter how strongly they are held. Is that clear enough? :roll:

"Taking issue" is one thing. Glibly making fun is quite another.

Especially when you START the conversation with the rebuttal. :haha:
How can making the case for atheism take any other form but a rebuttal? And it seems like any criticism of conspiracy theories, UFOlogy, etc. would also be verboten in your world.

I can't stand people of intolerence, seemingly such as yourself.
So you're intolerant as well?

Or do you in fact tolerate everything, including genocide, racism, etc... Everyone's intolerant of something.

As for the "indoctrination" of children, here's something else I can't stand: people who bitch about things but offer no solution. What, you think you can somehow stop parents from passing along their beliefs? Riiiight...
What can stop this from happening? Oh, I don't know, maybe discussing the issue? Maybe some parents change their minds, maybe some don't.

However, I do not feel the need to generalize it all as "bad", as you obviously do.

What did I just say: I love many examples of religious art, architecture and music, and I find some religious rituals interesting to observe. Yup, sounds like I think it's all bad.

Satire can never be meaningful?I didn't say that. I don't know how your particular choice of satire reflects all of satire, though.
Sorry. Is satire aimed at religion always meaningless?

So it's okay to discuss things, except the discussion itself? :doh:
Show me where I said you can't discuss the discussion.

My thread title and the bit I quoted indicated what the link was. If you don't want to read it, then don't.
Ah, typical lefty. Freedom of speech applies whenever an inciteful statement or discussion occurs. But, freedom of speech does NOT apply when someone calls them out on that discussion.

HAH!
That's an infringement of free speech? :o If you're going to interpret "free speech" so expansively for no reason, how can you not see that your argument is guilty of the same thing?

[Aramike]

*Yawn*So?So, I made my point regarding this in the entirety of my previous post. Just typing "so?" does nothing to refute or invalidate that argument.I think all beliefs, including atheism, are open to criticism, no matter how strongly they are held. Is that clear enough? :roll:Of course. Heck, why stop there? Why not criticize a 9 year old for believing in Santa Claus?

I'm not trying to equate religion with a juvenile belief, by the way. My point is that, just because something is subject to criticism, doesn't mean one must take said action.

Sure, there are many reasons that I personally don't find myself believing in any deity. Frankly, I wish I could. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to blatantly find fault in those who are able to make the mental leap that I cannot.

If you don't believe in the concept of a God, go nuts. If someone is attempting to unduly impress upon you the existance of God in a way that truly affects your life, I encourage you to rebuttal.

But to challenge a belief system solely because it irritates your sensibilities is an invitation for conflict that, quite frankly, makes you into the "smaller" person.

Like I said, and cannot stress enough - I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, I don't appreciate your approach (especially since it's based upon your intolerence). If you wish to debate the validity of a deity, you should be able to do so without making fun of those who disagree. Especially considering that one's belief about the essense of oneself is so fundamental...How can making the case for atheism take any other form but a rebuttal?You're correct.

But, that again begs the question: why? More reasoning follows...And it seems like any criticism of conspiracy theories, UFOlogy, etc. would also be verboten in your world.Not at all.

First of all, I don't lump people who find religion as the basis of their very existance in with UFOs, etc. Secondly, I believe that many conspiracy theories are crackpot in nature, and I'll freely argue against them...

...yet, I don't START the discussion. I believe, if you're going to be a crackpot, go nuts. Should you publically try to convert others to your views, well, you should expect a rebuttal.

See, the difference between our approaches is that, due to my disbelief, I feel no need to pursue the subject. For some reason, many atheists (including yourself) do feel that need.

Why? Atheism is the absence of the belief. As such, the belief doesn't concern you. On the occasion that is does, I agree that a rebuttal makes sense. But to make fun simply to incite, well that makes your atheism just about as "religious" as Christianity.

In my view, at list Christianity has a point. Atheism is nothing more than "nope".So you're intolerant as well? In some cases, yes. But the reasoning behind the things I'm intolerent of is far more complex that "I don't like that".Or do you in fact tolerate everything, including genocide, racism, etc... Everyone's intolerant of something. I think I just cleared that up.

Oh, and by the way - belief in a deity is not quite genocide.What can stop this from happening? Oh, I don't know, maybe discussing the issue? Maybe some parents change their minds, maybe some don't.Impractical and pie-in-the-sky. Also, quite honestly, unimportant.

Parents can only be responsibly expected to raise their children according to their personal belief systems. Just because you wish this wasn't reality doesn't make it unreal.Yup, sounds like I think it's all bad. Just because you say you like certain derivatives of religion doesn't mean you don't believe that belief in a deity is "bad".

Besides - the inconsistancy of your viewpoint is staggering. You hate religion enough to lampoon your percieved belief in its "silliness", yet you claim to appreciate the products of religion. Hmm...:doh: Show me where I said you can't discuss the discussion. A weak argument designed to dodge the point. Here, let me illustrate in my next rebuttal:Sorry. Is satire aimed at religion always meaningless?Show me where I said satire against religion is always meaningless.

Silly response, right?That's an infringement of free speech? :o If you're going to interpret "free speech" so expansively for no reason, how can you not see that your argument is guilty of the same thing?Not at all "guilty" of the same thing. I didn't make the point that you shouldn't bring up the topic ... I merely was suggesting the wanton incitefulness of your bringing it up, and whether or not it was a responsible use of free speech.

[Aramike]

Actually Aramike - you could take that "empty" box and open it and say HA - no diamonds - to which a person of faith could point out that the air inside said box contains portions of carbon - the same substance of which diamonds are made. While it may not be VISIBLE to you, diamonds do exist in the box. They are simply not in a form you RECOGNIZE as diamonds.Sure, one could say that. But words being words and meaning what they mean, it would be intellectually dishonest to do so.

I diamond isn't simply the element that it is made up. That's why we don't call a diamond a "carbon".
Spiritually/metaphysically/whatever other term you want to use - the facts are no matter how much you may see - the building blocks are ENERGY. The positive proton, the neutral neutron, and the negative electron. Each atom working in concert with each other - and we still don't understand how or why exactly. But the fact is that if you took an atom with one p/e pair, added another p/e pair - you changed what that atom "is" - and all you really did was modify its mass and electrical charge. *Don't even get me started on Ions and such*

If you see everything as simply energy - the rock is the same as water - just in a different form - or electrical state. Sure this is a VERY basic explanation, but when you get down to the low levels of substance structure - they are made up of the same stuff. Its all energy in motion - just different "charges" or speeds.

So many try to say "Well you can't prove God exists" - or "Well you can't prove He/She/It doesnt", that they lose the beauty of this realm with wasted arguments. I don't have to prove God exists, not to Angus or anyone else. I have enough proof for ME personally, and thats all I need. I see that proof in the things that science can not only NOT explain, but those things that defy every known law of science observed since humanity has been able to record scientific findings. Look at the power of splitting a mere atom - look at the fact that by rights, atoms themselves defy scientific explanation under currently understood physics (since a positive and negative charge would attract and thus cancel each other out - instead of one continually orbiting the other....), etc etc. I need look no further than science to see the wonderful DESIGN of this universe and realize that its complexity is well beyond the human mind to be fully understood. Science is a quest for knowledge - and religion is often the same. They need not be mutually exclusive - though many Athiests feel they should.

The reason Athiests so want to deny a Deity, is because that would make them less than the penultimate being. Pride is a stumbling block for many, but for those that would deny Deity, I would simply point to this world and say, my - how we have so created a paradise by being the "highest being". It is a hard and bitter pill, but if nothing else - humanities failures and we still exist is also a wonderful example of a "higher" hand.

Edit - for those that want to quote science - allow me to remind you of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy - no matter or energy can be created or destroyed - it simply changes form. This law is an amazing statement on the spiritual soul and its relationship to your "living" consciousness - you WILL exist after your physical body dies - so science itself has claimed. One can argue whether or not "you" (being the consciousness in some form) will exist - but there is no way science can prove or disprove that. It simply states that some form of you will exist for all time. People of faith simply expect that form to be one that has a level of awareness in some way. Before you ridicule that, you may want to realize that even things that were deemed "not conscious" years ago (like plants) - have been found to communicate and even reactions that denote intellegence without a known scientific explanation.
See http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/1160/ for an example. Just because science has a theory on something yesterday, or today, or tommorow - does not mean that understanding cannot mature. Do not ridicule just because you cannot fathom it. Your mind is finite. Seek knowledge - and you will find. Be it science, or theology. The wise man seeks to learn, and not merely mock.While I do agree with another poster that your view on particle physics is a tad behind the times, I also do agree with the principles behind your post in general.

I had you wrong, Haplo, due to my getting too emotional during our previous debate. While I still do vehemently disagree with a certain viewpoint that we've discussed, I have also recently found you to be quite a bit more insightful than I gave you credit for. Kudos.

[Bewolf]

Interesting discussion so far. One point came up I have to elaborate on. That is the acusation of atheists 1. actually "wanting" not to believe so they feel better and more important as human beeings an 2. try to have a go at christians or other religious folks.

To both a want to state personal expiriences.

1. ....is bullocks. Atheists hardly ever consider themselves more important without a god. On the opposite, most atheists I know can live with the realisation that humans are nothing more then animals that instead of developing special claws, teeth or other features important to survival of the fittest came up with a brain and intelligence. Undoubtly the most successfull survival tool so far, though maybe too successful, given what we do to our planet and our own basis of survival. Ppl like me are actually "unable" to believe in a god, because an allmighty God, especially the way it's percieved by monotheistic religions, just does not make any sense....at all. Then again, considering human nature, the environment and circumstances in which religions start, the way religion is more then often is abused for power gambles and personal gain, the wish of ppl for community and sharing the same morale norms, it makes total sense how religion was created in the first place.
Atheists don't feel any better then others, they just do not care to run with the flock just because of principal or because others tell them to do so. Most christians are christians because they grew up within christians communities, not because they once had the active choice of chosing. Were they born in middle eastern or asian countries they most probably would have shared the dominant religions there.

2. I had a christian upbringing. Most of my life I never had a problem with christians. In fact, up until a couple years ago I fought "for" christianity on boards like these, disputing claims of christians beeing evil for the crusades, witch burnings and all the other bad in the world, but beeing the roots of our culture and morales.
That has only changed, and to the complete opposite, after christians went into the offensive the last couple years, trying to force me into their morale standarts, trying to bring their private and personal affairs into the open and public big time. As long people stay at home with religion I have zero problems with it. But as soon they come out and try to make my life harder with their often hypocritical morale views, then it's time to fight back. By now christians in general made such a bad impresion on me, especially american ones (sorry, but these are the most vocal ones) I developed an almost militaristic view on these sects that want to bring down enlightment, human rights and progress of humankind. The same holds true to most other atheists, good and peaceful folks, but not willing to give away rights and privileges our forefathers wrestled from the church in long and hard struggles. After all you have to remember that the church, in Europe at least, was as much an opressor as any authocratic regime. That is still remembered. And the rule of religion falls into the same book as comunism and fascism, the absolute rule of one ideology opressing all others. Yes, I do feel threatend by christians and I am by far not the only one. We had the dark ages, thank you very much, no repetition required.

Now if there were more christians opposing these tendencys I'd have enough trurt in these communities to be valuable parts of society. But these voices of reason within christianity are way to few and way too passive to make any real impression. This is true for catholicism as well as the more fanatical american sects whose preachers appear even over here in ever greater numbers.

[August]

"Christianity/Odinism Motivator picture

Yet Christianity has 2.1 billion members and all neo-pagan religions put together barely make up 1 million. Guess the cross beats the hammer by a 2100 to 1 margin. :D

[Sailor Steve]

As for your last point, you are wrong. I as an atheist, and all atheists I have spoken to, are not disbelievers because we want to belive to be the highest form in existance but because there simply is no evidence for any diety. That is all there is to it, I am not saying that there can be no god, I am saying there is no reason to belive that there is a god, though should evidence come to light I will change my position. This is the position of any self respecting atheist.

Atheists hardly ever consider themselves more important without a god.
Christians like to call atheism 'The Godless Religion'. Most of the atheists I have spoken to also feel the same way as you two. The problem comes with a vocal few (isn't that always the case?) who come off sounding like religious fanatics. Ellen Johnson, the recently deposed head of the American Atheist Society, was one of those. Her attitude always seemed to be "There is no god, and you are an idiot to believe in one!"

I see a bit of that here as well. Like any fanatical belief, that attitude only adds fuel to the fire. I agree: I've looked long and hard, and can find no evidence for the existence of any superior being, let alone a supreme one. But I'm not a devout atheist either, possibly because I'm afraid to wholly let go of former beliefs; but I like to think it's because I'm keeping a truly open mind on the subject.

On the other hand, if you accept that there's a God, you then have to deal with the problem that every True Believer on the planet is convinced that his God is the right one, the only one, and if you don't believe him you're going straight to hell without a chance of parole. So which one do you choose?

[Aramike]

. ....is bullocks. Atheists hardly ever consider themselves more important without a god.This statement is true for SOME. There are indeed others who approach the issue with a sense of self-importance.after christians went into the offensive the last couple years, trying to force me into their morale standarts, trying to bring their private and personal affairs into the open and public big time. As long people stay at home with religion I have zero problems with it. But as soon they come out and try to make my life harder with their often hypocritical morale views, then it's time to fight back. By now christians in general made such a bad impresion on me, especially american ones (sorry, but these are the most vocal ones)I am curious as to how your life has been made harder...

What makes a bad impression upon me (someone who's wholly agnostic) is when atheists claim things such as a Ten Commandments display makes their lives harder...

[Sailor Steve]

What makes a bad impression upon me (someone who's wholly agnostic) is when atheists claim things such as a Ten Commandments display makes their lives harder...
Doesn't make my life harder, but I have to say that I used to be one who thought fighting the Ten Commandments displays at courthouses was silly. These days I find myself asking: What to the Ten Commandments have to do with civil law?

[Bewolf]

. ....is bullocks. Atheists hardly ever consider themselves more important without a god.This statement is true for SOME. There are indeed others who approach the issue with a sense of self-importance.after christians went into the offensive the last couple years, trying to force me into their morale standarts, trying to bring their private and personal affairs into the open and public big time. As long people stay at home with religion I have zero problems with it. But as soon they come out and try to make my life harder with their often hypocritical morale views, then it's time to fight back. By now christians in general made such a bad impresion on me, especially american ones (sorry, but these are the most vocal ones)I am curious as to how your life has been made harder...

What makes a bad impression upon me (someone who's wholly agnostic) is when atheists claim things such as a Ten Commandments display makes their lives harder...
The 10 amandmends certainly don't make my life any harder.

And I never said so. Something I am pretty sure you are aware of.
Please, I respect your intelligence, don't insult mine by deliberately misreading, kay?

In fact, I respect the ten amandmends, as much as I do respect the biblical figure of Jesus (don't know eough about the historical one). He was on the right track with his views and examples. I hardly have a problem with the original message but what christianity made out of it in the course of history and their need for a frightening god to make ppl comply with these messages.
I have a problem when instead of philosophy in school, where common values for all ppl are taught, no matter if christians, jews, muslims etc, is sabotaged by christians who want seperate religious lessons, seperating ppl, giving each of them a different set of values. That is a perfect way to fracture society and hindering integration of, for example muslim communities, into western standarts of values, indepedant of religion. As happend in Berlin recently. Our society is based on enlightment, not religion, respect that as much as atheists respect the right for privatlly held religion.
I have a problem with christians attempting to bring creationism or intelligent design into biology. Or trying to redefine scientific terms like "theory" to label their theology and make it appear reputable.
I have a problem with christians trying to hinder children to learn about sexuality, trying to force them into morale values that are deeply questionable. not because they have no possibility to live those values themselves, but because they want to force others to learn and accept them, too.
I have a problem with christians trying to convert me, or my family into their line of thinking.
I have a problem with prominent christians stating that human rights are not compatible with the bible and just a fashion of the modern era.
I have a problem with christians rather accepting holocaust deniers then liberals within their ranks, as happend here just recently with the catholic church.
I have a problem with religions that want to shut down peopls brain and let them follow a book without question. But that is something christianity shares with quite a couple other ideologies.
And last but not least, I have a problem with religious folks constant attempts to make ppl afraid of god when they don't do as he commands. We had enough dicatorships in real life, no need for any more on the imagination level. I rather rely on common sense when solving problems then to stick what folks wrote into a book 2000 years ago, especially when there are quite a couple other religions out there with contradicting world views.
2.1 billion christians there may be, but that leaves 5 billion thinking otherwise.

[geetrue]

It would be very hard to deny the fact that all things are spiritual no matter what religon you follow or even for a person that denies that there is no God.

A quicking of your spirit feeds the flesh from food to a snake charmer to a naked lady (for most of us).

The baby cries with its first breath ... a spirit is born into the world.

A dog gets caught chasing cars and is run over now stiff and dead, but before that moment arrived the dog was full of energy barking and chasing
after the cars on the road.

The body is dead without the spirit.

Saint Paul in a letter to the church at Corinth said,


"Now we did not receive the spirit of the world, but we received the Spirit that is from God so that we can know all that God has given us.

And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom but with words taught us by the Spirit.

And so we explain spiritual truths to spiritual people. A person who does not have the Spirit does not accept the truths that come from the Spirit of God.

That person thinks they are foolish and cannot understand them, because they can only be judged to be true by the Spirit."


As for the Ten Commandments the first christians were non-jews taught by the Jewish disciples including St Paul. but when the problem arose that they had to conform to the Jewish customs which certainly included circumcision and the laws of Moses to follow the Ten Commandments this is what St Paul had to say,

"Tell me this one thing: How did you receive the Holy Spirit? Did you receive the Spirit by following the law?

No, you received the Spirit because you heard the Good News and believed it. You began your life in Christ by the Spirit.

Now are you trying to make it complete by your own power? That is foolish."


I believe that the blood of Jesus paid for all of my sins on the cross at Calvary. That is when Jesus loved us ...
when you love Jesus thats when something super natural happens.

I believe Jesus is the son of God and that He now resides in heaven at the right hand side of God,
but He also lives in the heart of every believer through the power of the Holy Spirit.

I have to die to find out if I am right ...

That's when it will be too late for many, even if they did profess to follow after Jesus and call themselves christians.

Jesus said to his own disciples,


“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?

And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!

[Aramike]

The 10 amandmends certainly don't make my life any harder.

And I never said so. Something I am pretty sure you are aware of.
Please, I respect your intelligence, don't insult mine by deliberately misreading, kay?I wasn't diliberately misreading - I was making a point that had nothing to do with you.

Please don't insult my intelligence by regarding my points as so simplistic to be centered upon one individual. :|\\

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - thanks. Rather nice of you to say that. We will have to agree to disagree on that one topic, and I am pleased we both respect the rights of the other to see it as they do.

For those who pointed out my particle physics is a bit dated - yea well - so am I!:har:

Its been near 20 years since I had a physics class - I am sure some breakthroughs have been made. I also admit the explanation was also very basic. I am glad to see that some got the point I was trying to make.

Now I am rather vocal when I see someone professing a faith and failing to abide by its tenents. I do so privately - to counsel and help that person grow. Its not done with hostility, but with the hope that they can recognize and correct their error themself. That choice is theirs. You said that "since Chrisitianity has gone on the offensive" - but I must ask - can you give specifics? I can point to numerous instances where Chrisitanity - and Christianity only - has been targetted and persecuted. If anything, I would say that modern Christianity has become alot more DEFENSIVE than in the past. At least, here in this country.

In the US during the 1980's, there was a movement called the "Moral Majority" - led by very conservative, fundamentalist Christian "preachers" and devotees, who did try repeatedly to force their moral values on our nation. They were strongly rebuffed, as they rightly should have been. Nowadays, the only time I see any moral discussion tends to be on the issues of abortion and gay marriage. Any other time Christianity is involved in a discussion - its as a target for ridicule and persecution. For example, the movement to call Christmas simply the "Holiday Season". Why is this targetted persecution? Because while you can't say "Christmas", you sure can say Hannukah, Kwanza, and Yule (which is a byproduct of ancient Paganism). Only "Christmas" is off limits.

Now if you were a person of the Christian faith, wouldn't you get a bit defensive when a "holiday display" could have all kinds of things in it, but you are not allowed to display a manger scene. Or involved in a "holiday parade" - the only restriction being there would be no CHRISTIAN themed floats - but everything else is ok?

I won't defend every action made by a person calling themselves "Christian", but in a case like this thread - there was no provocation offered - it was started simply as what appeared to be an attack on people of one specific faith.

There have been numerous threads discussing and contrasting Islam and Christianity for example. Each person has had the opportunity to put forth their view, and note or link supporting information. Thats a discussion - or at least the beginnings of one. This thread - started simply as a "Look at the stupidity of those who think this". At least, that is how it appeared in my view.

I could offer a lot more difficult contradictions found in the Bible, some that have I have posed to some rather well known theologians and they looked at me stumped. I don't need to, because I am secure in what I know - or believe (use whatever term you wish) - and have no need to make anyone else question their path.

To hold someone or their belief up for ridicule, is akin to insulting them for no good reason. Its often done to try to make the person ridiculing them feel superior without good cause. A sad commentary, but often true.

[Stealth Hunter]

"Christianity/Odinism Motivator picture

Yet Christianity has 2.1 billion members and all neo-pagan religions put together barely make up 1 million. Guess the cross beats the hammer by a 2100 to 1 margin. :D

But my god has a hammer... a hammer that has the ability to cause the Earth to quake and shake at its very foundation; a hammer that can fill the land with a clamoring boom as it smashes all who oppose it.

[August]

"Christianity/Odinism Motivator picture
Yet Christianity has 2.1 billion members and all neo-pagan religions put together barely make up 1 million. Guess the cross beats the hammer by a 2100 to 1 margin. :D
But my god has a hammer... a hammer that has the ability to cause the Earth to quake and shake at its very foundation; a hammer that can fill the land with a clamoring boom as it smashes all who oppose it.

Bah demi-god kid stuff.

If my God wanted to hammer he'd hammer in the morning, he'd hammer in the evening, all over this land. He'd hammer out danger, he'd hammer out a warning, he'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters, all over this land.

[Stealth Hunter]

Bah demi-god kid stuff.

If my God wanted to hammer he'd hammer in the morning, he'd hammer in the evening, all over this land. He'd hammer out danger, he'd hammer out a warning, he'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters, all over this land.

BAM!

http://graphicworlds.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/thor.jpg

[Bewolf]

The 10 amandmends certainly don't make my life any harder.

And I never said so. Something I am pretty sure you are aware of.
Please, I respect your intelligence, don't insult mine by deliberately misreading, kay?I wasn't diliberately misreading - I was making a point that had nothing to do with you.

Please don't insult my intelligence by regarding my points as so simplistic to be centered upon one individual. :|\\

Q.E.D.


But not worth the discussion.

[Aramike]

The 10 amandmends certainly don't make my life any harder.

And I never said so. Something I am pretty sure you are aware of.
Please, I respect your intelligence, don't insult mine by deliberately misreading, kay?I wasn't diliberately misreading - I was making a point that had nothing to do with you.

Please don't insult my intelligence by regarding my points as so simplistic to be centered upon one individual. :|\\

Q.E.D.


But not worth the discussion.You're the one that said that the 10 Commandments are not an issue for you, ergo my statement does not apply to you. :yep:

Even though the other things you "have a problem with" hardly constitute making your life harder. Luckily, in the US none of the founding fathers were stupid enough to try to put in an amendment giving people the right to not be annoyed.

But here's another example of the way you and I obviously approach the question differently:I have a problem with christians rather accepting holocaust deniers then liberals within their ranks, as happend here just recently with the catholic church.*I* would have said that I have a problem with PEOPLE who ... I wouldn't ascribe such idiocy to a large group who, by and large, don't agree with this extremism.

Frankly, I often find close-minded atheists use any excuse to condemn religion, although it is individuals deserving of that condemnation. But I guess that's easier...

[Bewolf]

Whatever, have the last word on the issue if you feel the urgend need to.


But here's another example of the way you and I obviously approach the question differently:I have a problem with christians rather accepting holocaust deniers then liberals within their ranks, as happend here just recently with the catholic church.*I* would have said that I have a problem with PEOPLE who ... I wouldn't ascribe such idiocy to a large group who, by and large, don't agree with this extremism.

Frankly, I often find close-minded atheists use any excuse to condemn religion, although it is individuals deserving of that condemnation. But I guess that's easier...
Let's give you some facts:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129591

This whole affair caused some great controversy over here, in which quite a couple bishops made clear critique of the pope, at all, is unasked for. Only after immense public pressure and after way to long a time did the church comply and acted accordingly.

My original statement was no generalisation put here out of spite, but based on some real and very recent happenings. This together with repeated abuse of children, and I think the US has their own stories to tell in this regard, and consequent "protection" of such folks by the church, makes this quite a bit more then just unbased prejudice.

Frankly, I often find close-minded religion supporters use any excuse to defend religion and put the blames on individuals, if at all, although it is the whole group responsible for the actions of their members while beeing in service for that group. But I guess that's easier...

[Aramike]

Frankly, I often find close-minded religion supporters use any excuse to defend religion and put the blames on individuals, if at all, although it is the whole group responsible for the actions of their members while beeing in service for that group. But I guess that's easier...Nice try.

A: I'm not a "closed-minded" supporter of religion, in any way, shape, or form. My posts on this topic paints that quite clearly, and though you probably wish I were in order to support your argument, I am not.

B: Judging individuals as responsible is easier than judging an entire group? That's akin to saying that generalizations are tougher to articulate than specifics. You've just made a very transparent and absurd attempt at roundabout, friend.

Oh, and by the way, the Catholic Church does not solely represent Christianity. Yet another reason one should look at individuals and not groups.

[Bewolf]

Frankly, I often find close-minded religion supporters use any excuse to defend religion and put the blames on individuals, if at all, although it is the whole group responsible for the actions of their members while beeing in service for that group. But I guess that's easier...Nice try.

A: I'm not a "closed-minded" supporter of religion, in any way, shape, or form. My posts on this topic paints that quite clearly, and though you probably wish I were in order to support your argument, I am not.

B: Judging individuals as responsible is easier than judging an entire group? That's akin to saying that generalizations are tougher to articulate than specifics. You've just made a very transparent and absurd attempt at roundabout, friend.

Oh, and by the way, the Catholic Church does not solely represent Christianity. Yet another reason one should look at individuals and not groups.

A. Neither am I a close minded religion hater. Or let's say, I didn't use to be. That may change one day when I meet a person that is pro religion but also actually admits religion based problems and dangers instead of defending everything and anything to death for principles sake. Obviously not to be found in your person.

B. What?! Err, yes, judging an individual "is" easier then a group? And yes, generalizations "are" tougher to articulate than specifics if you want to characterize a group propperly, as the number of individuals make it the harder to find intersections, especially when perception and impact of groups on others is mostly defined by their most vocal and dominant members?

And then you have the balls of telling me "You've just made a very transparent and absurd attempt at roundabout, friend." ? :doh:

Give me a break.

Oh, and about your last point, absolutely right. But you picked this example of my long list of my probelms with christianity, and this particular problem applies to the catholic church. Which, btw,forms the worlds largest group of christians.

[Aramike]

A. Neither am I a close minded religion hater. Or let's say, I didn't use to be. What? You "didn't use to be", thusly implying that you are now?

Case closed.That may change one day when I meet a person that is pro religion but also actually admits religion based problems and dangers instead of defending everything and anything to death for principles sake. Obviously not to be found in your person.Obviously you're reading into me what you WANT me to be, even those the contrary is true. I'm not "pro-religion". In fact, I've been very critical of religion. Just like I'm critical of atheists.

I look at the issues case-by-case, rather than taking your simpleton's view of lumping it all into some grand but wrong generalization. You're route is too easy for my tastes. And too inaccurate.

As for "defending everything and anything", I know you can't be describing me. There are plenty of stances or actions the *CHURCH* has made that I find indefensible. But, in case you need help (which it seems you do), this thread is about RELIGION, not the CHURCH. B. What?! Err, yes, judging an individual "is" easier then a group? And yes, generalizations "are" tougher to articulate than specifics if you want to characterize a group propperly, as the number of individuals make it the harder to find intersections, especially when perception and impact of groups on others is mostly defined by their most vocal and dominant members?Wrong again. Maybe we should just MAKE IT EASY and say that all black people are criminals. Or, all white people are Nazis. Or, all fat people are lazy. Or, all Muslims are terrorists. Or, all ...

I just made a bunch of easy generalizations. All of which are wrong. This is why we don't use generalizations to judge people - at least, it's why some of us don't.And then you have the balls of telling me "You've just made a very transparent and absurd attempt at roundabout, friend." ? :doh:Yes, I had the balls to do so. Your interjection of crass descriptors does nothing to serve your point.Give me a break.Not going to happen.Oh, and about your last point, absolutely right. But you picked this example of my long list of my probelms with christianity, and this particular problem applies to the catholic church. Which, btw,forms the worlds largest group of christians.I don't need to go down the entire list of problems. They are all generalizations designed merely to muddle the point in support of your position.

In any case, I know PERSONALLY of many Catholics who find the church's behavior on certain issues to be repulsive. In fact, I haven't found any who support holocaust deniers. Ergo, it would be foolish for me to include them in a broad generalization, especially when that generalization doesn't even fit them.

[August]

BAM!
Pfft. Your god isn't even a pimple on the ass of my God:

http://fatherstephen.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/wrath-of-god.jpg
(http://fatherstephen.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/wrath-of-god.jpg?w=450&h=714)

[Bewolf]

oh jeez, rightnousness at work, take shelter.
Weekend is at the door, so I quit, you win.

[Sailor Steve]

If my God wanted to hammer he'd hammer in the morning, he'd hammer in the evening, all over this land. He'd hammer out danger, he'd hammer out a warning, he'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters, all over this land.
You do know Pete Seeger was a communist, don't you?

[Nisgeis]

Ah good, there's an expert with all the answers. Just what I need, as I was having a few questions about my faith.

What I don't get is why people say that proof denies belief, so that's why we don't get proof, because we have to believe. But, way back in ye olde bible days, God was popping up everywhere, speaking directly to people and demonstarting his power and all sorts of proof was going on. Was belief different back then? Did you need proof to believe then? I don't know, because there's all sorts of con men out there and how are we to know that they were the ones to hear the word of God, or see the proof of God's work. It's a bit of a stretch isn't it to say that everyone back then who said they talked to God, or saw a demonstration of God's power is truthful, but now if someone says that God made them do something, then it's straight to the nut house for them and they don't have to serve their time for the multiple murders they committed.

So, the question is, Why was proof back then OK, but it isn't now? What's God done, said OK, you humans have one chance and it's up to a bunch of people to convince evryone else that they're not making it up, but I'm not going to give them any help ever for at least another 2,000 years.

I have also read some accusations that aetheists want to prove that they are above God. Putting a different spin on it, why are we religous folk trying to put a 'we are above the animals' spin on it? The aethiests seem perfectly happy to accept they are an animal, but us religous folk don't seem to be happy to accept the same. I'm having trouble accepting that we were put here to rule over the animals. It seems trite to say that now. If there is an allegation of elevating one's status, then perhaps one side is more guilty than the other?

As a final word, i would like to say that a religion is a belief system and anyone who is an aetheist has that as their belief system. None of us have no beliefs. But some of us have open minds.

That anti-gay stuff being based on 'not casting your seed on infertile ground' I mean is that really still an issue, or have people backtracked from that? That could mean anything really. Like, say my wife can't have kids due to a medical problem. Is the bible telling me to not have sex with her ever? Who made her infertile? Why does God go around choosing who should and should not have sex? After all, it's not random is it? Is it? It can't be, we are told. So why did he select her for not having sex? EDIT: And how am I meant to know she is 'barren ground' beforehand? I mean, give me a sign... oh no, sorry, forgot you don't do that anymore, because that's in the past.

[Aramike]

oh jeez, rightnousness at work, take shelter.
Weekend is at the door, so I quit, you win.What, is righteousness any argument that isn't yours? :rotfl:

Besides, I don't think that there's a more self-righteous comment in this thread, than this little gem from you:And then you have the balls of telling me "You've just made a very transparent and absurd attempt at roundabout, friend." ? Have a good weekend!

[August]

If my God wanted to hammer he'd hammer in the morning, he'd hammer in the evening, all over this land. He'd hammer out danger, he'd hammer out a warning, he'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters, all over this land. You do know Pete Seeger was a communist, don't you?

So he really meant a sickle and hammer? :o

[Sailor Steve]

If my God wanted to hammer he'd hammer in the morning, he'd hammer in the evening, all over this land. He'd hammer out danger, he'd hammer out a warning, he'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters, all over this land. You do know Pete Seeger was a communist, don't you?

So he really meant a sickle and hammer? :o
:rotfl:

I was not expecting that one!

[CaptainHaplo]

Nisgeis,

I don't know who you meant by an "expert" who has all the answers, but if you would like to discuss theology, I will be more than happy to do so, so long as the discussion is respectful - on BOTH our sides. I can't claim to have all "THE" answers, because we as humans cannot comprehend an infinite deity, but I will answer what I can as best I can. Realize my formal training is protestant in nature, and my answers will be based on that, though colored with my own views. Thus, these answers are not "God inspired" truth, but points to consider to see if they help you find your own answers.

Regarding proof denying faith, I don't follow that logic. On the contrary, a previous post of mine was meant to show that the proof is there, for those who will seek it and choose to accept it. Science - in various forms, often proves facets of theology, or "Biblical" history.

Now I have to differ with you on the idea that in "ye olde Bible days" - obviously your meaning the Old Testament, God was popping up everywhere. How many gentiles did God ever appear to? Off the top of my head, I can think of just one .... Nebuchanezzer. He got to see some form of God twice actually, when the Hand wrote on the wall, and when the three young men were in the fiery furnace (what other kind of furnace was there back then???) and he saw a fourth shape within. Outside of that, I cannot (again - off the top of my head) think of any non-jew who saw God. Adam did, walking with God in the garden. So did Enoch, who was translated. One could argue that Elijah's translation was a manifestation of God, and of course the burning pillar of fire that let the Israelites know God was with them. Abraham and the burning bush, etc.. But again - these are all appearances to those of Jewish blood (since at the time of the pillar the nation of Israel was not yet fully divided if memory serves).

The manifestations of God "Himself" appearing to man are actually very limited. You do have him speaking from above quite a bit, but He made it clear that to be seen in His full glory would kill a man. In a book that tells the history of man for more than 2 milleniums, He physically appeared rather rarely. In fact, if you even count all the times He spoke directly - almost always to a single person, those instances are still quite rare.

There are many incidents in the Bible where man - both Jew and Gentile, are visited by angels. These are recorded as well, but again - in the scheme of time that the Bible covers, how often is this really happening? Don't forget the life spans of the people involved (something that science CAN and HAS explained) are recorded to be way beyond our current one. If you look at it from the grand picture - you have what - maybe one visit by an angel or "Voice of God" every 50 to a hundred years - and then usually to ONE person, or a very small and select group. Sometimes these visits are recorded as dreams as well. We know that other nations were spread throughout the middle east, cities were in place, civilizations and even empires existed - and you have one or two or 5 people saying "Hey, God told us this" every hundred years or so.

Seems to me we have alot more people nowadays - and a lot more "angelic" sightings, a lot more people thinking they are talking to God or He is talking to them. You can hear about people seeing angels alot if you research it. I am NOT saying they are all legitimate, but some may be for all I know.

The idea that the Creator suddenly abandoned mankind after the death of Jesus doesn't wash when you look at the history we have.

Regarding ruling animals, theologically speaking mankind is told to have dominion over the earth, and the animals in it. Thats not us putting ourselves above animals, its a directive. If you look at the fact that we have a consciousness and reasoning ability far above that of an animal, then its also natural that we take the reigns. Seems the instruction and nature agree.

I hope I didn't imply that athiests believe in nothing.

As for the homosexual matter - I will deal with that in my next post. I have to go for a bit but will return and post again in an hour or so.

[Frame57]

There is interesting research being done by Genentec and others on what they call the gene clock. Which addresses a gene that may be abled to greatly increase our age.

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok - the "anti-gay" stuff as it was put. Well yes, there are many theological references to homosexuality being wrong. There are numerous reasons for this. I don't see a reason to list and then "defend" them, but you brought up a specific one which I will address - the "infertile ground" point, and use that to make clear a few others.

I don't think anyone here is going to argue that a man shooting sperm into another man's arse is going to have a chance in hell of creating a child. So its a known fact that would qualify as "infertile ground". The question of knowing a woman is barren is a different one entirely - because it is an actual question! Remember - Sarah was barren for how long before she was with child? Even today infertility is occasionally unexplained - back then they had no way of knowing until a woman had gotten almost through her childbearing years to be suspected as barren. Also realize that the direction to not "spill your seed on the ground" was also a moral command taking advantage of cause and effect. If you peaked inside a woman and made her pregnant - you would have a responsibility - just as you do today. So it was a way of saying if your going to sleep with a woman, you should be willing and wanting to accept her as the mother of your children. Its not like contraception was all that effective back then, though it did exist. In a sense, it was a way of making a man's moral behavior part of the religious code when it came to sex.

Now I posted previously - in another thread I am sure - that the OT is a guide to living wisely. While gay activists would have you think otherwise, the facts remain that engaging in homosexuality for a man comes at a price - part of it being a significant increase in health risks. So not only is it a moral code - its also part of a health code. *As a side note - has anyone ever seen a biblical statement on lesbianism? Its either like on like which is generic - or man specifically prohibited....... hmmmm*

As for God making it random - sure He can - he is God after all. You asked about a sign that says your wife isn't barren - uhm.... well - don't worry - if she isn't barren - sooner or later your really likely to see a sign about it - she definitely will when she misses a cycle - or 9......

[Frame57]

Oh most definitely. I will have to find the verse regarding lesbianism but it goes like this, "Thou shalt not tolerate women carpet cleaners unless they are really really hot...":salute:

[Stealth Hunter]

BAM!
Pfft. Your god isn't even a pimple on the ass of my God:

http://fatherstephen.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/wrath-of-god.jpg
(http://fatherstephen.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/wrath-of-god.jpg?w=450&h=714)

Dammit, you summoned Njord. Wait- he's part of Norse Mythology, though. This is a good thing. Odin's great halls of merriment and celebration for the gods shall be filled tonight!

[August]

Dammit, you summoned Njord. Wait- he's part of Norse Mythology, though. This is a good thing. Odin's great halls of merriment and celebration for the gods shall be filled tonight!

No, that's not Njord or Nerthus or even Svafrborinn. What part of "mythology" don't you understand you silly heathen? :)

[Stealth Hunter]

Dammit, you summoned Njord. Wait- he's part of Norse Mythology, though. This is a good thing. Odin's great halls of merriment and celebration for the gods shall be filled tonight!

No, that's not Njord or Nerthus or even Svafrborinn. What part of "mythology" don't you understand you silly heathen? :)

Lol.
Njord, the great Wind God himself.:rock:

[AngusJS]

But to challenge a belief system solely because it irritates your sensibilities is an invitation for conflict that, quite frankly, makes you into the "smaller" person.So challenging something like Marxism because you disagree with it is somehow against the rules now? Again, what's the point of having a discussion board at all? To talk about the weather?

First of all, I don't lump people who find religion as the basis of their very existance in with UFOs, etc. Secondly, I believe that many conspiracy theories are crackpot in nature, and I'll freely argue against them...

...yet, I don't START the discussion. I believe, if you're going to be a crackpot, go nuts. Should you publically try to convert others to your views, well, you should expect a rebuttal.So say you have the misfortune of watching Loose Change. You're telling me that you can't then go online and post what you think about 9/11 conspiracies? You have to wait for a believer to mention it first?

This is madness. If you can't see that, then there's no point in continuing this.

Besides - the inconsistancy of your viewpoint is staggering. You hate religion enough to lampoon your percieved belief in its "silliness", yet you claim to appreciate the products of religion. Hmm...:doh: So, a libertarian who appreciates Soviet propaganda films is being inconsistent? Huh?

And again, I don't hate religion. You repeating that doesn't make it true.

Show me where I said you can't discuss the discussion. A weak argument designed to dodge the point.No, it was a request for evidence, which you don't provide.

Show me where I said satire against religion is always meaningless.I wasn't trying to make a point. I was trying to clarify whether you think any and all satire of religion is meaningless, or if it's just this satire that is meaningless.

That's an infringement of free speech? :o If you're going to interpret "free speech" so expansively for no reason, how can you not see that your argument is guilty of the same thing?Not at all "guilty" of the same thing. I didn't make the point that you shouldn't bring up the topic ... I merely was suggesting the wanton incitefulness of your bringing it up, and whether or not it was a responsible use of free speech.*sigh* Of course you weren't going against free speech...just like I wasn't. That was the point.

[Stealth Hunter]

Bit OT, but has anyone here looked at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's website? I love their satire. Link:

http://www.venganza.org/

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg/800px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg