Those who say that geetrue's god is sadistic/cruel/psychotic, I contend that he seems to have gotten better since the Old Testament.

Turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, then making him have sex with his daughters in a cave.

Darkly hilarious, and cruel.

Geetrue a prophet:huh:

:shifty:

:hmm:

If someone believes in God I thing it's totally wrong to insult or belittle them for it. Just my opinion.

LMAO (no pun intended) :rotfl:

Yes its a private thing.
Untill you post on the internet that god talks to you..

I agree. Please note that I leave people all alone as long as they do not become public about their religiont, or their ideology follows an agenda of claiming the right, no: the duty to convert others. Where either the one or the other takes place I reserve the right to make mockery of them. Which I think is what they deserve when doing exactly the opposite of what Jesus has taught people to do (Christians becoming public, becoming organised in institutions and churches or defending death penalty), or declare themselves as something like a master-religion that needs to submit all others by the use of intimidation, infiltration and/or open violance (Islam), and the one or the other is leading people back into intellectual darkness and reduces reason to the level before the medieval. At this point, who has been only funny or ridiculous so far - turns into a danger. Confronting such people and ideologies is not just a forum hobby of mine. I live and practice like that since years.

Or like Pat Condell put it, somehow like this: I respect other people's faith as long as I can listen to them talking about it without feeling the desperate urge to start laughing.

Now, you don't know what I laugh about, and what not.

Yeah well just remember non-belief hasn't served anything good to mankind either Skybird except maybe create a cultural and moral wasteland ripe for domination by a tight knit group of believers.

And no nicotine in any form for me thank you Herr Docktor. Not good for the heart stents doncha know.

Speaking of which i'd like to believe that God had at least a little help in pushing me into getting checked out after my heart attack when normally i avoid medical places like the plague. Maybe i'll suddenly take to driving fast on the highway with my eyes closed now eh? :dead::D

Atheistic religions like for example Buddhism by far cannot compete with the record of violence, conquest and intimidation set up by theistic global religions like Muhammedanism and "Churchism". And I reject the implicit conclusion that where there is no belief in a culture, there are no moral standards, no ethics. I would say that rejecting theistic believing in Gods, Allahs, some ancient vulcan gods or Harry Kruger (and thus: rejecting believing in general), often leads to far greater voluntary ethical and moral development and higher standards in the way that less acts of barbarism and violence are done in the name of "God", and that there is more willingness to reach out for the other, and be tolerant and not wishing to stick one's nose into other people's private business, becasue one does not think in termas anymore what is separating oneself from the infidel. The history of theistic beliefs is a history of ongoing violence and separation and erecting border and prejudice. Islam does like this, the medieval and later churches did like this. the latter accepted that it could not be like that any longer, and gave ground to sciences, philosophy, arts and culture, and gave up the idea of the inquisition. Note that many of those Christian sects keeping separate from the church, and trying to follow not the church's doctrine but the teaching of Jesus, often did not allow to become the origin or the excuse for violent excesses, wars and attempts of conquering (which did not save them from becoming victims of such things all too often). That is true for two so separate sects lile the amish, and christian mysticism (Meister Eckehard etc.) in general.

You may want to hint me at things like the Maoistic culture revolution in China, Stalinism in Russia, Nazism in Germany, racism like the KKK in general. but I would hint you back to the fact that these ideologies, although often being explicitly in rejection of popular relgious myths, nevertheless are belief-systems like the established religions: they believe in the strong Fuhrer who never fails ( a messiah-surrogate, if you want), they believe in the collective dominating over the individual, the power bof the community, they believe in law and order which sometimes came in the form of shock and awe. I don't see things like this in principal oppostion to theistic religon's beliefs. they share more characteristics than what keeps them separate. I even would say that capitlaism and communism are belief systems in the main, because even capitalism believes in something: in the dollar/euro, in the philosphy that only material values count and non-material values are unreal and thus can be ignorred, in the idea that it is one against all others, and the stronger one shall win while the weak shall fall. This ideolgolies believe in different things, but they believe very much in the same way and by the same mechanism and seek what is their understanding of happiness, like the official religions do.

And if you think that is too far-fetched and too queer, I recommend you come to Germany and visit the city of Wolfsburg, with the main factory of Volkswagen. In the auto-city, cars are celebrated like religious icons or holy relics, are presented in ways with very obvious and intended parallels to popular religious myths, it is a self-presentation of total materialism, the perfect waltz around the golden cow, the climax of all possible illustration how deep the cultural fall of the West already has been. It was totally crushing, and you cannot draw paralleols to what you see at the usual yearly automobile exhibitions. I myself saw the modenr religion VW had created around the automobile, I saw their priests and the believers, and left with a stunned mind and a feeling of total frustration.

If one day there would be a museum like the Creationsit museum, and instead of animals and people and holy figures they have put cars into the showcases that are meant to illustrate evolution (or whatever they call it :) ), I wouldn't be surprised a bit.

as usual, what i mean already has been expressed by others in so much more trenchant ways.

Miracles and morals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKcx0biHPR0

In Jesus' name:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZO2u-jDNpQ

Catholic morality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LStcajxvb_E

Politics and religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASqJAT1W3r0

Don't give me subdivisions Dude. Religion is religion. It is but only one of the many excuses people have used to justify violence throughout mans history. You're talking about greed and dominance but that ain't what belief is all about.

Tautology ahoy!

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

Belief is taking the unexamined and unexaminable as reality and/or truth, no matter that nobody knows nothing for real - and you better don't even think about starting to ask for evidence. That is all what "belief" is about. Lecturing young kids to be stupid and not using what has been given to them (their brain and their potential for being reasonable) in this context I consider to be child abuse. Teach them to use their brain and their reason (that "God" has given them for what other purpose if not for this one, if I may ask?), teach them how not to simply believe something, but how to ask questions, and when they became old enough, let them choose on their own in what way they wish to find answers to existential question that they may have on mind - or not. ;) Those not chasing for answers seem to be the most happy people of all, it seems to me.

So, that's what you believe.

:hmm: Does he believe his definition of belief is correct?

Either
A) He believes that his definition of belief is correct; in which case his definition must be unexamined and unexaminable as reality and/or truth, no matter that nobody knows nothing for real - and you better don't even think about starting to ask for evidence. That is all what "belief" is about; which is either a "leap of faith" or a hypocrisy.

or

B) He does not believe that his definition of belief is correct; which is a hypocrisy.

At first I suspected this was a paradox created by language and choice of words rather than flawed logic. However, on closer inspection it is quite a epistimilogical problem because as a abstract concept "belief" is unexaminable as reality and/or truth. Therefore to define it as such results either option A or B as above.

Doesn't everyone? If you don't believe what you believe.... not sure where to go from there ....

:).. I know ,that I know, that I know,...I think therfore I am....vanity of vanites ALL is vanity.