My mother and father were both crack addicts for most of my life. My father is in jail right now (or at least he was the last time I checked) because he got high and tried to shoot a couple people. One of which being my mother.

My grandfather is an atheist.
My grandmother claims to be a Christian, but her life rarely really shows it.

So why am I a Christian? Not because of my parents, or some sort of brainwashing done to me when I was four years old.

I believe in Christ because of faith. When you get into a car, most people have faith it's going to start. Would they have faith if they've never even seen a car before? Probably not. Events in my life have reinforced my faith.

I believe in Christ because it makes sense. For hundreds of years the Jews believed in God. God took care of them. Miracles took place. Prophecies were made about Jesus.

Jesus showed up, and fulfilled all these prophecies.

There is also historical evidence to back up the Bible and it's accuracy.

I have chosen to believe on Christ. It all makes sense and seems so simple to me.

So not because of having had a general ****ed up youth either? Just examining the possibilities...



Exactly



That's exactly my point We have reasons to believe a car exists. We have seen its effects. We have seen its blueprints, books written about them through scientific criticism and analysis, we can touch them, examine them, etc etc... Can't be said about god.



Excellent. Post them up, for critical peer review.



I'm sorry dude, but I don't give a flying **** about what people consider to 'make sense'. Evidence! Plus, the fact that you think people can walk on water, etc etc... makes me care even less about your opinion.

Evidence!



Evidence!



Evidence!



Evidence!

I'm kinda hoping you'll refer to Latin texts here. Biblical accuracy? Bull****!



It *is* pretty damn simple

Also, Whether you have faith that the car will start or not, the same thing will happen. (It will either start or it wont. Faith has nothing to do with it. Having faith it will start wont make it any more likely it will start.)

Why would you have faith that a car would start? Because it's always started for you before. If it rarely starts or breaks down a lot you have little faith it will start. In this example your faith is based on previous tests. Unlike beliving in god, where you've never even seen said car.

<3 Tenshu

That is one of the most interesting posts I've ever read... well put.

I agree, Tenshu decided to come in here and completely kick everyone's asses. Nice work. If I had to summarize why I ditched my religion, it would be because I was born into it. You outlined that phenomenon nicely.

Oddly enough, a Massassi religon thread helped me make the split. I was already on the fence, and was really thinking about a lot of stuff in life, and the arguments of the atheist point of view really helped me realize that logically, a god doesn't make sense.

So all of you who say that debates go nowhere and never change anyone's mind, BAM! An exception to the rule!

Yeah, I'm actually somewhat in the same boat. I'm sure you could go back far enough in some of my old posts and find some posts I made when I was an anal-retentative, super-religious person.

I have to disagree with Tenshu. What does it matter if someone chooses to have faith in God or whatever else? What does it hurt? (so long as they do not go to extremities and hurt others outside their religion.) I think it's beautiful when someone has faith like that and I actually envy them - not look at them as if they were blind, brainwashed sheep. (Now I'm referring to those who actually practice/have faith in their religion, not those people who say they're religious and go against everything their religion stands stands for...does that make sense?)

Why do we need evidence about everything? It's a question that's been bothering lately. Why do we need to know *everything*? Sometimes it just seems pointless...

Why would you believe in something without any evidence.

Going back to my dragon example from earlier in the thread: Would you believe me if i said I had a dragon living in my garage?

I really hope you have a dragon in your basement. Same as people really do hope there is a god. It's that hope that keeps people going sometimes. You're silly to question that.

PS I'm an athiest. I'd rather not be, since a lot of athiests give us a bad name, but I simply can't attach myself to a hope like that.

Some theists do reserve themselves to accepting that belief in God is logically indefensible - it is totally irrational and illogical. I don't see any significant problem with this position; the theist has accepted that any intellectualising will conclude that atheism is logically superior, which is pretty much all what we've set out to prove anyway.

The only way you're really going to follow up this is with the "theism is dangerous" line of thought, which is a messy and generally uninteresting line, probably following the 'religion causes wars' type argument.

(Also, I was most dissapointed that my logical discourse was overshadowed by Tenshu's post. boo to you. )

That's a valid concern, and it's up to you how you view the world. I choose truth over mental masturbation anyday though... it feels better in the long run.

*Edited out*

Good night to all, and thanks to Freelancer and GeneralRamos for the props

Both the idea that everything came from nothing, and the idea that a single thing gave birth to everything are both equally silly and abstract to me. I can't see athiests believing in one over the other, and still be able to call themselves athiests. The big bang theory is just as much religious as christianity is, if you break it down.

I say we shouldn't care. I say we should accept that we exist, and take death as an experience into whatever lies ahead. Be that nothing, or a heaven, or even a hell, I can't wait to see. My origin really is irrelivent anyway.

JediKirby

Mort-Hog, I liked your arguement. I'm a big fan of logic, I just wanted to turn everything around. It's interesting to question religion and all that jazz, but I think it's even more interesting to ask the question of why we have to know everything. If asking questions like this is "mental masturbation" I'm okay with that. I think it's just nice to have something to believe in. It would help in really bad times. Logic can be a bad thing, but once it's there it's hard to get rid of (not that I'd ever want to.) meh...

Yeah...the question of how the universe came to be is one of those questions that really bother me. Why I'd be interesting to know, it seems your head would explode from just knowing how and all that. I don't know what value it would be to know that either...

Read my previous post.

[Edit: Not the one you quoted, the one before that]

Well, we have been given a brain. And we want to find how the hell we got it in the first place. *shrug*

I wasn't going to get involved, but I decided (with one or two exceptions) to just answer questions or address misconceptions. (Although I still haven't read the first page). And it's LONG! Which means most people won't read it all the way through.

One thing I love is when people complain about where they'll end up (if anywhere), but do nothing about it, even though that choice is completely in their hands. This people are typically referred to as "whiners" in most circumstances. I think it applies here, too.


Tell me - do the following two lines fit your mentality?

"Some men only believe in as much as their eyes can see.
Some men only believe in as much as their minds conceive."

Glancing over this thread, it certainly fits in with others, clear as day. (I'm not specifically talking to you, now.) It can be summed up with this: "I can't comprehend it. Therefore, it can't exist." Quite arrogant, as if one individual's comprehension determines the outcome of whether something even can exist or not.

The big problem is that people simply don't understand what heaven, hell, and being saved, are really about. Let me explain as simply as I can with an analogy we can all relate to.
I create a file. Let's say it's a 3D model of something. Doesn't really matter what. It's one of the nicest looking models around, one of the coolest. It's a very good model. Now, I make the move to save the model, but the model has some corrupt vertex data, and the program it's running it crashes. The model is gone, indefinitely. It was never saved. I really wanted it to be saved, but nothing can be done now, even though I created it. It doesn't matter how good, cool, or nice-looking it was, it's gone.
Make sense?

It's not the most complete analogy, but it makes my point. There's a lot more to it, and I could delve deeper, but given the way you've reacted in the past, I know you're probably not listening anyway.


Wow, you're no different than people I read about in history who chalked up that which they didn't understand as being "magic."
See above.
Also, an excellent example of a strawman fallacy.
More specifically, supernatural means above nature, not just outside of it.

Science may have progressed greatly over the years, but our ability to see beyond it has not. At one point, we couldn't describe magnetism, and it was considered "magical" by many. You're demonstrating similar thinking. Just because it's something we can't study doesn't mean it's beyond science. It just means it's beyond our current technology.
I will challenge you, like I have others in the past, to show where in Christianity or Judaism that God was used to explain things they didn't understand. I think if you study, you'll actually find that people actually had a passion for their God (like king David), and a desire to know him more personally, far more than they used him as a tool to explain what they didn't understand.
If leaders change rules, it proves that their doctrine is corrupt or otherwise inaccurate. Mind you, it's doctrine that changes over time, not the foundation of the religion. That's why I attend a church that teaches from the Bible, rather than one that has it's own doctrine and teaches heavily from it.
That's obviously not true, because people didn't keep in line.
Children will, but people grow up and develop the ability to think on their own. So that rules out that theory.
There's that "I don't understand it, therefore it doesn't exist" thing again.
It's more popular than I'd even realized.
I'm glad my church isn't like that. Although I remember boring churches from my very early childhood.
At least one Native American tribe (can't remember which specifically) has written in ancient writing that a man with a disfigured face and pale skin (not sure about the skin, though) visited them and gave them prophecy that was strangely similar to that of the book of Revelation. Hindus end-times prophecy also depicts their god coming back on a white horse, just as Revelation says Jesus will. It's a bit strange, and I'm sorry, but I haven't done the full research on it.

In the Old Testament, it is made clear that the penalty for sin is death. To cover sin, an animal sacrifice was made. You were not allowed to use the sacrificial animal in any way, neither for food, nor for clothing. (It's not exactly a sacrifice if you did those things, right. ) That only covered the sin. Basically made it "hidden" to God. And because the sin was still there, you still carried its burden. And while God knew of your sin, he didn't actually see it.
In the New Testament, God sent his son, Jesus, to live a life without sin, and while upon the cross, the sins of the world would be laid upon him as he died, thus paying the price of death mentioned in the Old Testament. The price is paid. The only thing necessary of man is to allow God to take that sin. (NOT just cover it.) And it says He tosses it away as far as the east is from the west. What's interesting is that there is no marker between east and west (like there is with a north pole and south pole). So the distance is virtually infinite. It also says he remembers it no more. That does not mean (as Flexor thinks) that it takes away your individuality. God is only concerned about purifying sinful imperfections. Not all imperfections are sinful. I might venture as far as to say we have more unsinful imperfections than sinful ones. But that may vary from person to person.
I hope that helps. It's a bit sad that people who don't know that are allowed to "teach" it to children. Or anyone, for that matter.
Yes, Jesus did go to hell, fought with Satan for three days, and took the metaphorical (or maybe simply spiritual) keys of life from Him, and even brought back to heaven some portion of those who were in hell. A similar thing is suppossed to happen again, mentioned in Revelation. Upon judgement, all those "in hell and death" will be delivered up to be judged by their works. This is the 2nd death (if you don't make it, anyway). The first is based on those who had faith in Jesus, or something like that.
Nobody made it into heaven before Jesus died. The exception being Enoch, who was taken into one of the first two heavenly realms, but not the third (where God Himself dwells).

God also demands absolute justice. Forgiveness alone does not exclude one from the consequence of sin mentioned in the Old Testament, anymore than forgiving someone of murder excludes them from jailtime.
That's two completely different things. You're talking good vs. bad, then clean vs. unclean. He said certain things were unclean for us to eat. A study of the animal in question will usually show why. Catfish are scavengers and eat muck, pigs eat slop, etc. The sin part of it is disobedience, not the meat.
Also, the Bible does not mention not eating meat on Fridays, I'm pretty sure. I may be wrong.
Nor is it love.
Not that I'm trying to boast, but check out the style of worship my band picked up from Kansas City (in my sig). We're not like uber-super-great (far from), but it's prayer/worship that few churches engage in.
Going to church and singing about 3 songs isn't worship.

Fixed. :p
Anyone who's spent more than 3 seconds in a catholic church is catholic, apparently. I guess that includes me.
In any case, I don't think a Christian would declare himself God, like Hitler did.
But of course, if someone says their Christian, it's automatically true.
FYI, the gospel of Matthew points out that hell was created for Satan and the fallen angels, not for humans. There is no mention anywhere in the Bible that God sends people to hell. The exception being the final judgement in Revelation involving the lake of fire.
Every single decision you will ever make has consequences, good or bad. This is no exception to the rule.
Even so, people still (even knowingly, sometimes) choose hell over God. Just so they can have what they want during their short temporary lives.
The point of free will is this:
God laid down "laws." They are basically an essay of the things that make God happy. When you love someone, you do what makes that person happy, right? So... those who truly love God can demonstrate their love by doing what makes Him happy. (Love without action is void.)
There is no such thing as a choice without a consequence. Cause and effect.
But these are all natural things.
If you can accept that the universe did not need created, why do you insist that it must be different with a God who exists beyond what we can perceive in our minds? It's being rather hypocritical.
Quite simply, a god is not a person. It's like an amoeba trying to understand how multi-celled organism exist? To it, we are billions of people in one. Yet our organs operate seperately to sustain a single entity.
Of course, and amoeba can't actually think that far (if at all). But on the other hand, we can't think as far as a god could. We are only capable of understanding that which can be studied and perceived.
And since I don't have a microscope, I can't really study an amoeba, can I?

John 1:1 - "In the beginning, the Word (Greek Logos) was with God, and the Word was God."
It goes on to say that the word became man and dwelt among us. The Word, of course, is Jesus.
Makes sense to me.
And I didn't learn about my religion by not questioning it. The Bible calls Christians away from "childism" and toward maturity in Christ. You don't do that by not questioning. Without questioning, there cannot be learning. Without learning, there cannot be maturity.
"Sin Nature" is a more accurate term that Original Sin. Neither term actually appears in the Bible, of course.
It goes back to what I said above. God demands perfect justice. And I'm sure someone will be more that "ready" to weigh in their concept of justice over God's. "Knowledge puffs up, but a pure spirit edifies."
Adam & Eve were created in the image of God (sinless). But they fell into sin. Their children were born in the image of man (sinful). It's the nature of humans to sin.
Everyone sins. Everyone doesn't use a PDA to cheat.
We are still trying to use science to determine this, too. Again, how is it different? One way or another, it came to be. What's important, though, is that we're here now.
These all come from things that already exist. I suppose a Christian could argue that God indirectly created them.
Good point. In fact, I have a friend who was atheist, outright declared he wanted nothing to do with God, religion, Christianity, and blantantly said he never wanted to be like Christians.

He's now, in less than a year, become passionate for God, and is becoming a great worship leader, already better at it than me. Why? Because he was in a place where God's Spirit moved upon the people, and he got caught up in it. There was no way for him to deny that God existed, and that He was full of love like His Word says, because He experienced it firsthand.
But Christianity doesn't claim a man is God, but that God took the form of a man.
1 g-d exists
2 g-d is one and unique
3 g-d is incorporeal
4 g-d is eternal
5 Prayer is to be directed to g-d alone and to no other[/quote]All these are based on a lack of understanding of what the trinity means.

Really? Have you actually ever even compared the New Testament and Old Testament? Go ahead. I've taken the liberty of matching up just a few of the correlations predicting the coming of the Messiah and the fulfilment of the prophecy by Jesus.
Genesis 49:10 - Matthew 2:6
Jeremiah 31:15 - Matthew 2:18
Judges 13:5 - Matthew 2:23
Isaiah 11:2 & 42:1 - Matthew 3:16-17 & 17:5
Psalm 78:2 - Matthew13:34
Psalm 69:21 - Matthew 27:34, Mark 15:36, & John 19:29
Psalm 22:17 - Matthew 27:36
Psalm 22:18 - Matthew 27:35
Amos 8:9 - Matthew 27:45
Psalm 22:1 - Matthew 27:46
Malachi 3:1 - Matthew 21:12 & Mark 1:2
Isaiah 40:3 - Mark 1:3 & John 1:23
Psalm 2:7 - Mark 9:7
Isaiah 53:7 & Psalm 38:13 - Matthew 27:14, Mark 15:1-3, & John 19:9
Isaiah 52:14 & Micah 5:1 - Mark 15:19
Psalm 22:8 - Mark 15:30 & John 19:24
Isaiah 7:14 - Luke 1:26-27
Isaiah 61:1-2 - Luke 4:18-19
Isaiah 6:9 - Luke 8:10
Isaiah 53:3 - Luke 22:65
Psalm 22:7 - Luke 23:35
Psalm 41:9 - John 13:18
Zechariah 12:10 - John 19:37
Prophecy comes from God, right. So how can any be "better" or "worse?"
How does that contradict?
According to the Old Covenant, you are bound by the Law, and if you do not adhere to it perfectly, you do not make it to heaven. Strangely, modern Judaism seems to have tossed aside this covenant, with a simple "good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell."
Strange, isn't it?
I don't recall the prophecies saying the Messiah will raise the dead. Maybe you could cite something specific?
Modern science would've discovered if such a creature exists by now. And if it did exist, it sure as heck wouldn't fit in your garage.

Forget the emptiness. It would be more like:
God -> Universe comes from God.
Unless God is a form of energy. Or unless spirits do not require energy. A god is supposed to be all-powerful. Infinity is not easy for our human minds to understand.
Consider this:
No rules whatsoever existed with God. NONE. That's a complex thing to fully grasp (if it can be fully grasped). The #1 reason why people don't believe in the existence of God is because they try to apply the rules He created back to Him, when they've never even existed with Him in the first place.
So I guess that since we can't study it, it doesn't exist.
Man, when I look at all the stuff around me that, according to science 1000 years ago, doesn't exist... wow.
Yeah. Ad ignorantium fallacy.
You can tack on whatever label you like. People aren't going to be swayed by semantics.
They will basically deny that it happened, or propose that it has some "logical explanation," or is a placebo effect. Anything they can think of to keep from admitting that someone was healed by God. Because that would destroy all sense of logic.
I joke, but with what I've definitely observed.

Ok, I think I'll break this post. It's pretty beefy as it is.

Holy crap! It's beefier than I thought!
*passes out*

I'm not complaining about where I'm going to end up. I'm trying to understand why you would condemn someone to hell who's never even heard of Christianity. Jesus, try upping your reading comprehension skills. So I'm a whiner because I want to know why your faith condems a majority of the world's people? Okay.



*Sigh*

Of course I can comprehend your abstract notions of theology. Nowhere have I ever claimed that something can't exist because I can't comprehend it. I just want to know why your religion is so goddamned unfair. And by the way, your analogy was horrible.



What the hell man? Seriously, what the ****ing hell? So everyone who lived on the earth before jesus was born is just ****ing screwed? WTF?!?!?! That's unbelievably unfair.

You know...just because you said no one would read it, I read it out of spite...but now am too tired to comment on it. I never knew Jesus went to Hell for three days and battled Satan though...that was really interesting. Also (random Bible question) aren't Lucifer and Satan two different angels (and that Lucifer didn't fall, but Satan did.) I remember reading that somewhere...it's kind of like the Mary Magdalen not being a prositute thing. Oh okay...my brain is melted. Time for bed >_<

So... um... part 2. I swear they won't be this long anymore. *sigh* That's what I get for getting involved late. But the thread initially looked like it was taking a bad direction from the start. I guess I was wrong. I'm not real concerned with the whole "does god exist" argument as much as I am with the more theological stuff. (Like at the bottom of this post).

Whelp, I guess God should just pack up and leave then.
Hmmm. 1 Cor. 8:1 - "all of us possess knowledge." "Knowledge" puffs up, but love builds up.
Basically, knowledge makes us believe we don't need God, as you've well demonstrated.

Did it hurt?
...
When you shot yourself in the foot? :p
You completely missed the point. Being complicated doesn't make something untrue.

I suppose if you want to change the meaning of what Wolfy quoted (even after he explained it!) then, you could also say that everyone who saw Jesus is in contradiction with John 1:18.
It's always fun to see how quickly logic is avoided when trying to find contradictions in the Bible.
Woah! I never knew that The Who were in the Bible!! Awesome!!!
Better idea?
So you propose to tell me that if you don't teach a child right from wrong, it will grow up to be a good person?
Anyone who's really paid attention to the habbits of children growing up knows that's not true. My aunt does a terrible job raising her children. Her oldest is into drugs and whatnot, her other child (about 10 or 11) is already stealing things. Because she never teaches them what's right and wrong.
I appreciate your optimism, but it's easy to see it's not true.
So we don't have much difficulty agreeing. You just said that all forces would be under the control of a god, which in relations places a god above the forces of nature.

I guess I stole your equation before reading it.
Since we're here, I think it might be interesting to note that God's name in Hebrew is very closely related to the Hebrew verb form "to be." His name literally means "the one who I am." Sometimes we refer to Him as "the Great 'I AM'."
Jesus used a close Aramic (or maybe Greek) form similar to "Yahweh," which is why people totally freaked out over it.
Yeah... anyway.


I've lost track of some of the specific quotes, so...
In regards to religion being created for hope of an afterlife:
There are many religions that do not believe in heaven or hell, some that don't even believe in a deity, others that believe in endless reincarnation. Most of these are African religions. In any case, it shows the theory of religion created for the aforementioned reason to be incorrect.
Actually, creationism is specifically a Christian belief, based on literal (important keyword) interpretation of the Bible's creation account. I don't believe it's literal, at least as far as literal is to humans. It might be literal to God, though. Depends heavily on things I couldn't possibly know.
So what happens when a day comes that science evolves to a point where the supernatural can be studied using scientific means?
You know, a good portion of the world approaches "science" far differently than us. Take China, for example. Their procedure for medicine is what does work, not what "should logically work." It's an excellent frame of mind to be in, and I wish the rest of the world would adopt it.
I'm not sure if that made sense here, but it's something worth noting.
Here we go... observing nature.
You know, what we learn (through science in particular) isn't based so much on evidence, but rather on how that evidence is interpreted.
But you're still applying our laws to something above our laws.
That is again a requirement of our existance. Not really. Let's say I'm going to push some object across a desktop. I don't need to create the force to do it, I simply need to move. Why? Because all the potential energy I need to do that task is within me. Just as everything God would need to accomplish his task is within Him. Therefore, the forces need not be created because they indwell God.
However, even though you're talking about supernatural forces, you're still treating them like natural ones. Who's to say the supernatural has any laws of physics?
Not a problem. For a deity, anyway. If you're going to keep applying natural laws all the way through this, though, you're going to confuse yourself a lot.
And with the usual "natural logic/laws" type argument. I realize this is not something easy to understand. You just must look beyond everything you know, and it should come into focus, at least to some degree. You will also note that such people adopted a polytheistic approach. Each thing they couldn't explain was a different God. So why do Abrahamic religions go against that. It was quite popular in the day. And that will limit you. I love that argument.
As if God would be an optional appendage. What if in fully explaining that creation, God is the single most critical element in it? (And what if we have proof of Him?)
See? You seem to get it when it pertains specifically to science, but you completely abandon it when it pertains to a god. Seems like a double standard to me. I suppose it couldn't possibly have been faked, now could it? :p
I suppose you could "interpret" it any way you want, when you rip it out of the Bible, take it out of context, expect it to stand alone, etc.
Speaking of logic... Making up your own laws of physics doesn't count as logic.
ROFL! Semantics are fun. But surely you can do better.
So... if I think about something, it's more powerful than me. Wait... no. :p
I guess, then, if I don't obey traffic signs, it is actually beyond my ability to obey them, so they don't exist either.
The only thing being mocked here is real logic. Hypothetical logic seems to be your strongpoint, though.
You contradict yourself. One cannot be all-powerful, yet depend upon something.
Then by your own hypo-logic, the universe (and inadvertantly, everything in it) must also be all-good and all-powerful. Clearly, that's not the case.
If what you've demonstrated is your idea of what logic is, I agree.
Well, I guess we should just take your word for it then.
Wait... no. :p
Emotion is beyond logic, yet is not beyond our ability to see that it exists. (Don't try to sidestep with what makes up emotion in the mind. It's still emotion, and it still exists.)
The largest problem with your proposal is that logic is a mindset; a way of thinking - not an entity.
Of course not. How long did it take you to come with hypothetical logic like that to convince yourself you had a concrete answer? Treating logic like an entity? HA. What a load.
Nice effort, though.
The Bible spends a whopping 2 chapters on creation. That's about 3 or 4 pages of a Bible (if even that). That's hardly what I'd call an attempt at explaining things using God. Not really. I know of nothing in science that contradicts my religion.
That's not how we got so far in science. We accept evidence of what we can test. What we can't test, we save for the future.
You can't logically just reject something because we can't yet observe and/or test it. *cough*electromagneticwaves*cough*
What was it you just said... oh yes: "we observe a phenomenon, ask ourselves 'is it compatible with our specific religious dogma?'"
Albeit, it was more like personal dogma.
Too bad that doesn't apply at all to a lot of people who adopt religion as adults.
And if a deity exists, it really doesn't matter, does it? Yes. Which means you've automatically shut the door to the possibility of a deity? Do you think that God's just going to come before you and be all "Leik here I am! LOL!"
You've never picked up a Bible in your life, have you? :p
Precisely.
But will it really? With faith that my car will start, I'm quite likely to try starting it. If I believe it won't start, why would I even try it? So it is with God. With faith, I'm more likely to see if God is the person his word claims. Without it, I'm almost certain to just forget the whole notion.
Right?
Is it cold that far up on your high horse?
Goshm golly, I don't know we religious folks can match wits with you athiests.



John 3:17 - "For God did NOT send his son to condemn the world, but that through him, the world might be saved."

I don't recall claiming anyone said those things, either. And it wasn't in regard to theology, but simply nature of a deity's existance.

First, not 'rescuing' them from hell doesn't mean he didn't love them. I mean... look at king David. God actually manifested Himself on earth under David's rule in the Ark of the Covenant. The ark was God, for all practical purposes. And under that presence of God, David became quite enlightened by God. Dancing and such out in public, especially for a king, was not too common, as you might imagine.

God evidently didn't hate sinners as much as you think. The people whom God did the greatest things through were average people, sinners. That's completely contrary to nearly every other religion, which try to make only the "holiest" people worthy of their god.
But even in that light, the wages of sin is still death. And God demands fulfilment of the cost. And no, it's not easy to fully understand what sin is about, especially in comparison to full righteousness, because no one has ever seen such a thing. We judge and weigh by sheer relativism. Something is good compared to this, or bad compared to that. Whereas God uses his own absolute standard instead. And because of how we weigh good and bad in our own society (comparitively), many see it as unfair.
Now, did I not also mention that Christ redeemed those in hell during his three days of death? There are, if I remember, different "realms" of hell, just as there are different "realms" of heaven. (I may be wrong, there is actually not much mention of hell in the Bible.) And of those realms, not all were the fire and torture and whatnot. So don't assume too much.
Again, I might be mistaken on that. But the point is, God didn't forget about them, even while they were in hell. And if he remembered those in hell, there's no reason he'd forget those still on earth. [/sappiness]
No, they're the same. Lucifer is the name he had before he fell, and he rejected that name because it was from God.

I am more than happy to answer questions, but it would be nice if your try to be a bit more pleasant about it. I'm trying my best to do the same.

Quit dodging my ****ing question and tell me why someone who's never heard of Christianity goes to hell. I've asked the question 5 ****ing times and everyone keeps sidestepping it.

Good post, and thanks for the work put into it... there's lots of stuff to be done though




What – choice? You seem to think humans are some sort of superrational beings who think through their every action or thought, without being affected at all by their past experiences, upbringing, social environment, physical environment, genes, specific pathology, etc etc etc.

Did YOU choose to be a Christian? What evidence for Christianity makes it better to believe in than Islam or even Invisible Pink Unicornism?

If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had. No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions that you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place. Epidemiology, not evidence. (Dawkins)

Noone even think of replying without answering that.

Choice? **** no



First is limited, second is stupid.



Can *YOU* comprehend the invisible pink unicorn?

This is the entire ****ing problem right there. Everyone seems to think that what the holy book you uphold so dearly by chance says is true, and that all the rest has to fit in with that. That is NOT how reality and our quest for it works.

Any evidence for your god? Or do you just *know*, and is all the rest of the world mistaken?



I know what you mean. It's the feeling I get when I'm non-debating evolution or science in general with a fundamentalist. Only difference with this jealous god here is, that we have all the evidence in the world for evolution, and there are actually reasons to believe it.



I understand very well what heaven, hell and being saved are all about. A religion has been passed on over the generations through arbitrary historical happenings and dynamics. The holy book our culture worships (which is of course the right one) is a different one from the thousands of books other cultures worship because of geography, imperialism, sociology, developmental psychology, social psychology, differential psychology, trade relations, trade routes, etc etc... if you are born into a Christian family, which is the product of all of the above, you are saved (because Christianity is the right religion). If you are not, you are thrown into hell for all eternity.





Exactly... so why you guys think you found some sort of way to find him is above me. Works both ways.

Evidence!



Flawed analogy. We could observe magnetism. There where reasons to think why it existed. We could see its effects in the real world. Nothing like that to be said of god.



I agree.



The entire books of Genesis probably. There's probably more, but I hate the Bible so I don't really know.




It's obviously working on some.



Man, I think you're far to optimistic about this. I hate psychoanalysis, but what Freud essentially says is right: what you pick up in your child years goes with you for the rest of your life. Read what I wrote about sensitive periods. And to quote myself: You seem to think humans are some sort of superrational beings who think through their every action or thought, without being affected at all by their past experiences, upbringing, social environment, physical environment, genes, specific pathology, etc etc etc.

You know you have hit a certain level of arrogance when you start quoting yourself

There's no such thing as 'free will'. And how many people actually stopped and think pre-WWII: hang on... why are jews inferior? How do you define 'inferior'? Can I see a karyotype? How about a history of global jewish hate? Can I see correspondence on the jews trying to take over the world? What about economy, can I see some graphs on the negative influence of jews on export? etc etc....

The person who asks these questions, we call a 'scientist'.

Circumstances don't have to be that dramatic at all: people suck. What 'thinking'?

People don't think at all. They blindly follow authority around, without question. When was the last time *you* questioned your bible man? Start with this: 'in the beginning' – what does 'beginning' mean?

Also, the ability to think is the exact reason why I'm not buying into the annual christianity sales.



Is that the standard answer nowadays? Read it again, and realize that it's not an answer.



I can as well



Sin implies 100% free will.



Evidence?

I don't think the Iliad talks about this.



Sin implies 100% free will. You're committing fundamental attribution errors all the time.



I agree.

The dude in your camp who said Darwin was the inspiration for the holocaust should read up on what the difference is between 'natural selection' and 'artificial selection' is. Also, read a biography on Darwin: not many people in history were more gentle and loving than him. There was noone more convinced than him that all races are equal. Evolutionary biology has shown that there is no such thing as race. It's not OUR side that applies arbitrary divisional labels.

Ummm... were you bearing false witness?



The Oddysea says something else.



No free will, fundamental attribution error, blablabla.



Evidence? I'm not hypocritical at all... read up on quantum fluctuations.

You are assuming again by default that what the bible says is true. So prove it. The Qu'ran says something else.



Doesn't make sense.



Define 'beginning'.



Of course. Or Che Guevara (who has in contrast historical validity). Or Mohammed. Or the guy from the Pita Pit.

Or, and this is an outrageous thought: it's BS. The thousands of religious visions can't all be right, yes? I'm thinking that they're all equally bs.



Your definition of 'sense' is useless. It makes 'sense' to you because your peer group imposed it on you. 'Water into wine' does not make sense. Millions of organisms on a boat does not make sense.



:/



It's literally impossible for something like 'sin' to exist. It fits perfectly in the worldview of the original demographic who proposed it.

Uh oh... what am I really saying here?



Your god is the most unjust god possible. See above.



No such thing as sin.



Not an answer.



What, through a blind, undirected process for which the outcome was impossible to predict? It fits perfectly in the worldview of the original demographic who proposed it. We're not special, unlike ancient belief tells us.



No external or ecological validity at all. Lots of people can't deny that they're Napoleon nowadays.



There will be a time for aries this month when they're happy. They will also experience some pain. You will meet someone new. Your superduperday is Friday



Evidence!



See above.



And this is different from god... how exactly? There literally just as much proof for his dragon as there is for your god.



Evidence!

That's just moving the problem (which science is uncovering very slowly).



Evidence! Or do you just *know*?



So, how the **** YOU got to know him is beyond me. You just *know*? You opened your heart chakras to him, which muslims, pink unicornists etc... can't?



You're not really clean on fallacies yourself.

Again, assuming the Bible is true 'by default' is NOT how things work.

Evidence!



Are you honestly saying 'laying of hands' healing exists? Do you think 'the exorcist' was a documentary? Man, I respect you and all, but this new-age bull**** should've been exposed by everyone a long time ago – didn't you write above somewhere that you have to question everything?



Thanks for the time. More to come

Religion ®2005 – whose crap will YOU be believing 2005?

Edit: If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had. No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions that you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place. Epidemiology, not evidence. (Dawkins)

+Freelancer's conveniently ignored question

The Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't true by default. The Bible isn't true by default. Evidence!



Doesn't make it true either.

An extreme symptom of ``mystery is a virtue'' infection is Tertullian's ``Certum est quia impossibile est'' (It is certain because it is impossible''). That way madness lies. One is tempted to quote Lewis Carroll's White Queen, who, in response to Alice's ``One can't believe impossible things'' retorted ``I daresay you haven't had much practice... When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'' Or Douglas Adams' Electric Monk, a labor-saving device programmed to do your believing for you, which was capable of ``believing things they'd have difficulty believing in Salt Lake City'' and which, at the moment of being introduced to the reader, believed, contrary to all the evidence, that everything in the world was a uniform shade of pink. But White Queens and Electric Monks become less funny when you realize that these virtuoso believers are indistinguishable from revered theologians in real life. ``It is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd'' (Tertullian again). Sir Thomas Browne (1635) quotes Tertullian with approval, and goes further: ``Methinks there be not impossibilities enough in religion for an active faith.'' And ``I desire to exercise my faith in the difficultest point; for to credit ordinary and visible objects is not faith, but perswasion [sic].''

Evidence!



I'm not following this particular thread in the debate, but your remark about logic and contradictions is tragic.



Ummmm... you picked exactly the stance you're attacking right now above. This is exactly one of the many, many reasons why this 'sin' and 'hell' etc ... is mental masturbation crap.



Why not just say creationism is bs?



:/



If we see ribosomes under a microscope, we're pretty damn sure that they're actually there. Strange that you, a religious person, call scientists on interpreting things.



Evidence!



How do you know this? The ab urbe condita libri say something else.

Evidence!



Assuming the deity exists by default is extreme fallacy.



Evidence! Invisible Pink Unicorn! I am Napoleon! The Dawkins challenge! The Aeneid!



Because a polytheistic approach is less omnimax than a monotheistic one.



Evidence!



Some huge IFS there.

Evidence!



?



Everyone is allready interpreting the Bible full stop.



What laws of physics? Bearing false witness?



...

Not an answer.



James, Lange, Cannon, Bard, Schachter, Singer, Lazarus, Darwin, Zajonc, ... disagree. But these guys are scientists, so I dunno…



Doesn't make real-world sense.



Actually, you didn't really do much to challenge anything he said :/



So, at what point is something eligible as an argument. 5 pages? What about 5 pages and 2 sentences? 4 pages and 9 paragraphs? I'd call it an attempt at explaining things using God indeed.



Except for geology, psychology, sociology, history, biology, chemistry, physics, naval engineering, ...



If we have reasons to believe something exists, we'll test it.



There are reasons to believe electromagnetic waves exist. *COUGH* Stop that bull****. It's degrading, and I expect better of you.



Evidence.



I'm not saying it's the only explanation.



If. Evidence! You just KNOW. You have a HUNCH.




Not at all. I'm a scientist; if you give me a reason to research something I'll take a look at it. So far this debate has been lacking though.

Evidence!



I'm not referring to the Bible in particular, but to all holy books. Yep – there's not a single better predictor of hate and disgust of reality than religion. Religion sucks so hard, but it's good at one thing: feeding into the human need for cognitive security. Not a single dynamic in the world is more eager to label. Not only that, it labels other humans as death-deserving, hellbound, inferior enemies.

What a bull**** comment to make. You never picked up a history book, newspaper, sociology article, social psychology article, etc.. in your life, have you?



'In the beginning' – define beginning.
Take the Dawkins challenge.
Calculate the specifics of a vessel carrying millions of organisms, millions of tons of food.
Give geological proof of the flood.
....

I have lots of these. I think every single verse in the Bible is open to criticism. As are the Upanishads.



Evidence!



No, you can't. History proves thought makes the advancements, religion fights them.



The theravada says something else. But you just *know*, right?



Dude, that is such bull****. They were thrown in a place of eternal pain because of chance? Get the **** in touch with reality. Open your energy flows to it.

Sin is impossible. Next!

*SIGH*

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

.

Try actually reading the entire post rather than taking chunks out of context, because you haven't offered any fallacies. You actually also quoted some of the assumptions I was proving to be untrue.
I have proved that logic is more powerful than God.
I think your biggest problem is that you don't fully understand what 'logic' is. You seem to take it as being "thinking scientifically", which is most evident by the ludicrous claim that 'emotions are beyond logic'. "Illogical" is not "beyond logic".
Logic isn't a 'way of thinking'. heh. And 'hypothetical logic'? hypo-logic? ....

Logic has nothing to do with the laws of physics. Logic has nothing to do with science. Logic is the study of arguments. Logic provides prescription for reasoning, both in philosophy and mathematics.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by my fallacy of logic as a mindset and not an 'entity', but I have actually covered both of those possibilies. Either way, logic must exist outside of God.

I'll post my discourse again, so you can have another try. This time try reading everything, twice, and then try addressing it.



Logic is more powerful than God.

If there is a logical reason why God exists, then logic created God and logic is all-powerful and logic restrains God.

If there is no logical reason why God exists, then the Universe could exist for no logical reason, and so does not require a creator.

If God has logical thoughts, then logic is more powerful than God.
If God's thoughts behave according to no logic, then there are no absolutes. It would be possible for God to create a square circle - an all-powerful being that doesn't adhere to logic would be able to. To say that God doesn't obey logical rules is to say that the abilities of God are abilities that cannot logically exist. Just as much, any absolute is obsolete, and this makes a mockery of all your religion, afterlife, lives, thoughts, everything. It means that we are completely unable to predict anything of God, anything of 'good' or anything of 'evil'. It makes God worthless, and totally inaccessible to us.

God, although all-powerful, did not create logic - God requires logic in order to think or create.

An alternative is that logic is not a freestanding property, and that logic is an inherent part of God. God has properties such as "all-good" and "all-powerful", so perhaps "all-logical" as well.
But this is impossible, for the following reason. If God can contain a property of 'logical' then the following statement must be true: That the Universe, that requires no cause or creator, also can contain logic inherently. This means that if this defense is true the Universe doesn't need God in order for logic to exist anyway.

So, no, the proposal that God 'exists outside of logic' is untrue.

Some of you have gone on to say that the human mind itself is limited, and this appears certainly to put a firm stop to all intellectualisation, it certainly looks like an absolute argument-stopper, but it really opens up a whole load of more criticisms.

If the human mind is 'insufficient' for thinking the supernatural, then debating the existance of God is silly. It is the human mind, human thought and human mentality that has arrived at the concept of God in the first place.

To propose that God is 'beyond logic' is the admission that belief is beyond logic and that such beliefs are irrational and logically indefensible.


Some of you have made the claim that the 'unknown' is explanation for God.
There are x things that science doesn't explain and the concept of God explains them therefor God exists.
The 'unknown', new facts and new arguments, are just as likely to disprove any given theory as they are to prove it, and it is for this reason that this argument is unusable. In addition, it is certainly a historical trend that scientific evidence has always enroached upon supernatural belief and the exploration of the unknown is largely bad news for religion. Appealing to the unknown is only setting a timebomb for religion, because at such as that unknown is explained then it can no longer be used as an argument.


If God can make plans, think logically or exist, then logic is an over-arching power that encompasses God and gives reason for God's existance, which makes it impossible for God to be the creator of logic. If there is no logical reason why God exists, then there is no logical reason why the Universe exists and instead of assuming that the organisational force is 'God', it is simpler and more rational to assume that it is the Universe itself. Whether God exists for logical reasons or not, fundemental contradictions occur either way.
The only answer is that the creator-God cannot exist.

Did you even read the link Freelancer posted.

Read the exerpts from Mein Kampf. It's quite clear that Hitler was a Christian.

http://www.bible.ca/b-prophecy-60.htm


There's a lot to read/reply to. I'll just stick to the prophecy thing.
I'm pretty sure that blows a hole through the following:


"There will be a time for aries this month when they're happy. They will also experience some pain. You will meet someone new. Your superduperday is Friday." -Tenshu

Thanks for clearing that up and sorry if I've been rude...it was late >_>

That proves nothing.

The fact that the prophecies are fulfilled by other books in the bible discounts them.

It's like me saying "I will make a cup of tea" then promptly going off to make a cup of tea.

And many of them are generally questionable.
Like:
"He pre-existed creation", "Anointed by the Spirit", "Raised from the dead", "Ascended to God", "Seated beside God".

I even asked around about this, because it's a form of intellectual dishonesty that I never came across before. I quote (Family Man, iidb.org):

It's called reverse engineering. What the gospel writers did was to mine the OT for prophecies then wrote their narratives to fit. There's nothing particularly persuasive in that page except perhaps the naivete of the author.

To TheJkWhoSaysNi: The New Testament books that they are written in were written by different people hundreds of years after the original prophecies were made.


To Mort-Hog: Yeah. Some are kinda vague. Some are not.


To Tenshu: What evidence do you have to say that they were being dishonest?

Those aren't the only prophecies made in the Bible. There are prophecies that can be proven by historical evidence (because they happened after the Bible was finished). I would gladly post a few of them, but you might all complain about the length of my post.

Do it!

Ack. I have a birthday party to attend to. I'll post a ton of crap when I get back later tonight.

You're not in a hurry. Have fun, and post back when you're conscious again.

Diogenes the Cynic, iidb.org, on http://www.bible.ca/b-prophecy-60.htm:
That page is so riddled with fallacies I hardly know where to start.

First of all, almost nothing the page calls a "prophesy" actually is a Messianic prophesy when read in context.

Secondly, the page claims hits for such absurdities as "he pre-existed creation." Huh? That's not even a Messianic expectation (the OT Messiah is not God) but even if it were, where does the author of this page get the idea that Jesus fulfilled it?

I don't really have the inclination to do a line by line debunking but I will point out a typical example of the page's generosity of interpretation. It claims that Herod's slaughter of the innocents was predicted by Jeremiah 31:15. Here is what that "prophecy" actually says:


This is what the LORD says:

"A voice is heard in Ramah,

mourning and great weeping,

Rachel weeping for her children

and refusing to be comforted,

because her children are no more."


It's obviously beyond specious to get from there to Herod killing babies in Bethlehem (to be fair, Matthew did it first and this web page is just parakeeting the gospel). There's also the fact that Herod's slaughter is a Matthean fiction that never happened anyway so here we have a prophecy that wasn't a prophecy and a "fulfillment" that never occurred.

The whole list is like that. When you actually spend even a few minutes reading the "prophecies" you see what bunk this all is, even leaving aside the fact that much of the gospels were written by raiding the Septuagint for any suggestive passages that could be found and then fabricating a narrative out of these decontextualized bits and pieces.

Oh...and when you look at the genuine Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh, it turns out that Jesus completely dropped the ball on all of them.

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”





Her leaders judge for a bribe, her priests teach for a price, and her prophets tell fortunes for money. Yet they lean upon the Lord and say, "Is not the Lord among us? No disaster will come upon us." Therefore because of you, Zion will be plowed like a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble, the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets.




I will surely gather them from all the lands where I banish them in my furious anger and great wrath; I will bring them back to this place and let them live in safety. They will be my people, and I will be their God.



The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy. The glory of Lebanon will be given to it, the splendor of Carmel and Sharon; they will see the glory of the Lord, the splendor of our God.



"Before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children."


"If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, … You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you. Five of you will chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand, and your enemies will fall by the sword before you."

---------------------------------

This website is very clear on it's prophecy. Nothing on it (that I can find) is vague. They provide a plethora of information. Everything I posted above was taken from that site ( or BibleGateway.com )

http://www.100prophecies.org/prophecy.htm

So.... yeah.

( Tenshu, the party wasn't too great. )

Sorry about the late reply... I really have other stuff in my life to do right now, so I can't be bothered. I won't be able to reply a lot anymore, so if you have stuff to add, write it up in a word file and post it up later, or debate on with other capable guys here.

I'm only gonna copy and paste what others said. I don't have the time, and I admit stuff like this is my weak point.



Hah! EXACTLY! Evidence! I'm smiling hardcore right now because you said that - a scientist! Great man... don't ever let me get away with stuff like that.



TheOpenMind, iidb.org
Not even a generation before, the Jews were being massacred by millions... Wow, these Hebrews can change their evil ways soooooo fast!

Now, if they were any other people in the world... You could explain it with naturalistic hypotheses such as: they were educated westerners well seasoned in the arts and crafts of war, motivated by the holocaust, while their enemies were mostly under-educated, camel herders used to being just docile under centuries long turkish rule... But no! Since you have to justify your pet bronze age mythologies, we have to season it up so it looks like a chapter from the Lord of the Rings?
That way, every other battle won by any other people in the world will look naturalistic, and the Jews' victories will look divine!

Plus... Who said the Jews keep the word of God? First, they reject Christ (I'm supposing he's Christian, so, saying that they "keep the word of God" is such a contradiction!), second, Israel is ranked as one of the Top 10 Countries With Highest Percentage of Atheists (1991)



spin, iidb.org
What a load of codswallop. Historical revisionism raises its rampant stupid head. After committing a few atrocities such as Deir Yassin and frightening the Palestinians enough for them to flee, the Israelis stole the Palestinian land and justified it with the BIG lie that they were moving out to make way for the Arab invasion.

The Israelis (or, if you must, Israeli Jews), but not the Jews, won the war. There are Jews around the world who were not involved.



While Judea had its capital in Jerusalem -- it was the only city of size --, there is no historical connection between Israel and Jerusalem prior to the inauguration of the modern Israeli state. The northern kingdom centred on Samaria was called Israel at least once by Assyria, but there is no historical data to show that it ever had control of Jerusalem.

Again, let's get terminology right: they stole additional territory.



After the Israeli Zionists started the wars of 1948, 1956 and 1967 without any tangible censure, one can understand the Arab states attempting to regain what was stolen.



This is Zionist propaganda and has no place in Bible criticism. Many Jews around the world reject the secular state of Israel shamelessly manipulating the religious implications of returning to Israel for purely political reasons.

This cited drivel has nothing to do with Leviticus and the fool who wrote the stuff knows very well.

There's more, but I feel stupid for having other people write it up for me. If this doesn't satisfy you, again, write it up in a word file for future reference.

Thanks and all the best