Argument against Christianity

[Pika]

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I think that this verse captures the essence of Christianity. The only way to be saved is through Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins (or original sin). Without this belief, even if one believes in God, he is not a Christian.

This argument is a reductio ad absurdum. I will show that by presupposing that Christianity and its central message is true, and the God that Christianity describes exists, we obtain an inconsistent set of propositions, a contradiction: therefore our presupposition is false, and Christianity is false and its God does not exist.

Let's presuppose that Christianity is true. Therefore:

[1] It is necessary that one believes in Jesus Christ as God and his message in order to be saved.

[1.1] If one does not believe in Jesus Christ as God and in his message won't be saved and will suffer eternal tornment. (from [1])

Before Jesus Christ was born, him and his message did not exist (Jesus has a human part, and that was necessary for his sacrifice and message to be realized). It was impossible for the people that lived before Jesus Christ to be aware of Jesus Christ and his message. Therefore:

[2] It was impossible for any human that lived before Jesus Christ to believe in Jesus Christ as God and his message.

[2.1] All the people that lived before Jesus Christ did not believe in Jesus Christ as God and in his message. (from [2])

[2.2] All the people who lived before Jesus Christ were not saved and suffer eternal tornment. (from [2.1] and [1.1])

The next premise follows from the definition or concept of the Christian God:

[3] God is perfectly omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent and the creator of the world. (the God described by Christianity in the Bible)

[3.1] God wants only good for his creatures and is capable of actualizing it. (from [3])

He had foreknowledge (perfect omniscience) that the people who will live before the coming of Jesus Christ and the actualization of his message, will suffer eternal tornment and won't be saved. And knowing all this, he wanted to create the world. Therefore:

[4] God wanted to create the world knowing that all the people that lived before Jesus Christ will suffer eternal tornment. (from omniscience above, omnipotence and [1.1])

[4.1] God wanted that the situation when all the people that lived before Jesus Christ suffer eternal tornment to be actualized and actualized it. (from [4])

[4.2] God does not want only good for its creatures and is able to actualize it. (from [4.1])

Contradiction with [3.1.].

Therefore our presupposition is false: Christianity is not true.

The argument is formally valid. So one can attack its conclusion by attacking the premises:

Attacking premise [1] If one considers premise [1] to be false, this means that it is possible to be saved if one does not believe in Jesus Christ as God and in his message. It means that there are other ways of being saved, and one does not have to believe in Jesus to be saved. Clearly this contradicts the christian doctrine and ends up the defence of Christianity by denying Christianity. Self refuting.

Attacking premise [2] This one is true in virtue of the fact that Jesus did not exist as a man before he was born and no one was aware of his message because it did not exist before Jesus preached it.

Attacking premise [3] This is pretty much agreed about God of Christianity. He is perfect. The Bible pictures him as all powerfull, all knowing and all good. One has to attack the Bible in order to defend Christianity, and Christianity rests on the Bible. Self refuting.

Attacking premise [4] From omniscience God knows in advance these facts. He created the world (from Creator). He wanted the world to be actualized knowing all that (denying this would turn God either into an unconscious creator or an ignorant - both contradict his properties).

So, the premises are true and the form is valid (reductio). Christianity is false.

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

If you say that

[1] It is {NOW} necessary that one believes in Jesus Christ...

this is the same as:

[1'] It was not always necessary that one believed in Jesus Christ ...

Or, to state it in another way, christianity was not always (at all times) true. Or that the "christian truth" is time dependant. There was a time before Christ when you could be saved without believing in Jesus. And that situation changed.

And because most Jews found that unacceptable, they didn't start to believe in Jesus. That is, they could be saved when sticking to their laws (or believing in god, doing good works etc. without believing in Jesus) before Christ arrived. And now they are unsaved, even if they do the same now that their anchestors did to be saved. The rules have been changed by an unchanging god.

Or you can believe that even today Jews could be saved - that is, it was never necessary to believe in Jesus to be saved. Not before Jesus, not after him. But you cannot believe that an unchanging god changed the rules for salvation at some time in the past.

Now you are left with two contradictions:

[1] An unchanging god changed the rules.
[2] Christianity was true for all times, but it was not true before Jesus appeared on earth.

And even after Jesus appeared on earth, there were people who couldn't believe in him, because they didn't know a thing about him. Either, they are unsaved because of circumstances that they are not responsible for. Or, they can be saved by doing good works, living a good live etc. In this case, what you are saying is:

[3] It is not necessary for all people to believe in Jesus to be saved.

Otherwise, you're left with yet another contradiction:

[4] It is necessary to believe in Jesus even if it is impossible to know anything about Jesus.
[5] God is just.
-----------------------
[6] God's justice means, that you're saved if you believe something that is impossible to believe.

And this leads to:

[3] It is not necessary for all people to believe in Jesus to be saved.
[7] If christianity is true, it is necessary for all people to believe in Jesus to be saved.

This contradiction can only be solved if you conclude:

[8] Christianity cannot be true.

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

Or:

Christianity (believing in Jesus is necessary to be saved) was not true at all times and is not true for all people.

Or:

[1] It is necessary for all people to believe in Jesus to be saved.
[2] It is not necessary for all people to believe in Jesus to be saved.

Or:

Jesus is not at all times and for all people the way and the truth and somebody could come to his father even without him. But that is not what Jesus said, quite the opposite. So, in saying that Jesus is the truth and the way and nobody could come to his father without him, Jesus didnd't tell the truth! The "nobody" in that sentence is false and misleading.

Copyright by PIKA

[leekohler]

Could you paraphrase for those of us with time constraints? This looks kind of like a rant to me.

[r.j.s]

Could you paraphrase for those of us with time constraints? This looks kind of like a rant to me.

The first part of the Christian bible contradicts the second part ... if Jesus is the only way to heaven, then what about everyone who lived before Jesus?

[Rt&Dzine]

That's too logical. It always comes down to that leap of faith.

[yg17]

The first part of the Christian bible contradicts the second part ... if Jesus is the only way to heaven, then what about everyone who lived before Jesus?


I guess they went to heaven, and then when they made up the idea of jesus and hell, they evicted everyone already there :rolleyes:

[leekohler]

The first part of the Christian bible contradicts the second part ... if Jesus is the only way to heaven, then what about everyone who lived before Jesus?

Ah...but I thought that was the point of Jesus? Wasn't everyone else who came before also saved? Ah well...it's been a while. I've been trying my best to forget. ;)

[edesignuk]

Yeah, I think they were just "grandfathered" in, as it were.Convenient, that. There's a nonsensical answer for everything.

[iBlue]

Convenient, that. There's a nonsensical answer for everything.

Oooh look, my (self) deleted post just got grandfathered in too! I think it's a sign from god that it should stay. Thanks dear. You are my personal saviour.

[miloblithe]

Why can't you believe that an unchanging god changed the rules for salvation at some time in the past?

Doesn't seem like a crazy notion to me. In fact, it seems like the opposite. The definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

[No1451]

Christianity may be absurd but arguing against it is just as absurd. You cannot EVER have a logical argument when one party falls back on faith, it's a personal thing that cannot be debated.

I say, let them believe whatever they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone(or their freedoms which it sometimes does).

[djellison]

Christianity may be absurd but arguing against it is just as absurd.

I see your point, but many (myself included) consider organized religion to be highly damaging to humanity's progress. It has spawned hatred and violence. It has jailed geniuses, muted masters of the pen, and executed those who contradicted their own diabolical beliefs.

I believe the world will be better off with no religion at all. If, by debate, discourse and discussion, I can make one person see the world for what it is....it's all been worth it.

Most religious people believe in one god, and don't believe in dozens of others. It's just one more small step to come out of the shell and see the world, ourselves, and our universe for what they are.

[Gelfin]

The copyright is kind of funny. I assure you that you are not the first person to think of this.

At the core you have articulated an elaborate version of the problem of evil, and I assure you, apologists have spent centuries coming up with ways to deflect arguments exactly like this.

As far as the salvation of the pre-Christian righteous, I direct your attention towards a lesser-known myth called the Harrowing of Hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell). You didn't think Jesus was just kicking back and napping for those three days, did you? No sir. He was on a high-octane pulse-pounding rescue mission.

As for the rest, among modern Christians who have fully nerfed what was once a very scary and ill-tempered God character, you're going to come up with most opposition in your turn from "God wants only good and can accomplish it" and your assumption there is no reason he would not restrain himself from doing so.

A common idea many Christians seem to hold but often aren't able to articulate well runs something like, "the unfettered free will of humans generally is a greater good in the eyes of God than the individual evils that they may bring upon themselves by the exercise of free will."

In the gap between what you think God ought to do and what God actually chooses to do lies the breakdown in your deductive validity.

At least from their point of view. At a deeper level they still have the problem that their god, if he exists as they describe him, is utterly insane, a premise that would actually clear up quite a lot of their longstanding theological conundrums if only they could be persuaded to accept it.

[arkitect]

Why can't you believe that an unchanging god changed the rules for salvation at some time in the past?

Because said god is supposed to have worked it all out right at the beginning. No? Changing the rules would mean he made a *gasp* mistake! And that just will not do.
:rolleyes:

Unless of course creation is akin to a giant IKEA flatpack assembly and god went: "Whoops! Wrong screw into wrong hole… Hummm let's just hammer it into shape."

It was the priests and other wacko "representatives of god" who changed the "rules".

[yojitani]

You won't shift someone's faith with a 'logical' deconstruction of a facet of religion. Theologians and philosophers have been making crazy arguments for the existence of God for thousands of years none of which are convincing, even for a Christian. That hasn't lessened faith. I'm not religious or even spiritual, but this type of argumentation is pointless.

[nateDEEZY]

Much like how Catholics derived the idea of purgatory, this sort of limbo state. In regards to religion and it's interpretations there are many things we can speculate.


Deuteronomy 34:5-6
So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.


Followed by... Perhaps the idea of pergatury or the limbo Dante speaks of.


Matthew 17:1-3
And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.


If you want to interprit it literally, so to speak. Jesus~God~Holy Spirit/Trinity blah blah blah.

Jesus proclaiming he is God.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 10:30-31
I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

John 10:38-39
The Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him.

John 14:9
He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.

Revelation 1:17
Fear not; I am the first and the last.

Revelation 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Yes yes I know wikipedia isn't always a great source but this was the easiest most readily available description of Virtuous Paganism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuous_pagan)

Why argue?

Consider this:
http://i41.tinypic.com/30uepaa.gif
1 = Detailed investigation into Christianity is needed As Soon As Possible!
2 = Detailed investigation into Christianity is needed reasonably soon!
3 = I won’t dismiss Christianity, but there isn’t sufficient reason to
investigate it now.
4 = Christianity isn’t relevant to me. Maybe I’ll go to a restaurant tonight.

There are different approaches to assessing the probability associated with the truth of
Christianity...

...Consider an event E1. Now consider that the probability of E1 actually happening is P1.
We can write an equation for the probability of E1 as:

P(E1) = P1

Now consider that there are a several independent events E1 through En, with
corresponding probabilities of P1 through Pn. We can write an equation for the probability
of all these events occurring simultaneously as:

P(E1…En) = (P1 * P2 * P3 * …P4)

As long as the events are independent, you derive the probability that they occur
simultaneously by multiplying the probabilities of each event.7 For a simple case,
consider several events that each have the same probability Pe. The probability that all of
those events occurring simultaneously is:

P = Pe^n, where n is the number of events

Source: Link (http://www.phc.edu/journalfiles/dietz_risk_probability.pdf) Although the source is linked from a place I'd assume is rather bias, I still give the math calculations some weight. I remember first hearing about the discussion of probability and the cost/reward factor of Christianity and leading a virtuous lifestyle back in the late 90's early 00's.

The source goes further on to show old testement prophecies and where they were fulfilled in the new testement.

Interesting views, imo.

[nateDEEZY]

The copyright is kind of funny. I assure you that you are not the first person to think of this.


Lol, he is not.

Durante degli Alighieri (May/June c.1265 – September 14, 1321) "their great worth alone/ was not enough, for they did not know Baptism,/ which is the gateway to the faith you follow,/ and if they came before the birth of Christ,/ they did not worship God the way one should" In regards to virtuous pagans... he then speculates/writes about Trajan of Rome and Ripheus of Troy and how they were allowed into heaven.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/kpaffenroth/updike1.htm

A paper discussing the Divine Comedy in regards to Virtuous Paganism


When Dante encounters these two pagans in Paradise, he immediately questions their presence. He asks the eagle of the pagans’ presence there and the bird replies, "And to this realm none ever rose who had not faith in Christ, before or after he was crucified" (Paradise 19:104-106). From this statement we are told that every soul in Heaven had faith in Christ, whether or not they had knowledge of Him. But how can you have faith in a person whom you do not know? Since it seems impossible for a human to have faith in someone they have never heard of, it can be assumed that in this case, the word Christ does not represent the individual, but the ideals He represents.

[bruinsrme]

Who created God?

[Tomorrow]

I think that this verse captures the essence of Christianity. The only way to be saved is through Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins (or original sin). Without this belief, even if one believes in God, he is not a Christian.

I'm with you so far, but some of your logic is based on slightly flawed statements.

[1] It is necessary that one believes in Jesus Christ as God and his message in order to be saved.

It is necessary that one believes in Jesus Christ as the son of God and that he was sent by God to die for our sins, and to accept that sacrifice, in order to be saved.

Before Jesus Christ was born, him and his message did not exist (Jesus has a human part, and that was necessary for his sacrifice and message to be realized).

More or less, yes, this is true. This was before the Christians split from the Jews, which is why we have an Old Testament and a New Testament. In other words, the rules changed after the game was started, so to speak.

It was impossible for the people that lived before Jesus Christ to be aware of Jesus Christ and his message.

This isn't quite true; the prophets foretold that God would send a savior to wash away our sins.

[2] It was impossible for any human that lived before Jesus Christ to believe in Jesus Christ as God and his message.

Yes, but again - this was before Christianity split from Judaism; it was not expected that the Jews would believe in Jesus Christ, who had not yet come.

[2.2] All the people who lived before Jesus Christ were not saved and suffer eternal tornment. (from [2.1] and [1.1])

Here's where it gets dicey - in a mind where someone expects and demands that everything be black-and-white, it appears that you'll end up with a "this religion is correct and all others are incorrect" sort of mindset. There may be many religious folks who fall into this mindset; I'm not one of them. My religion isn't any better or more correct than anyone else's.

God wanted to create the world knowing that all the people that lived before Jesus Christ will suffer eternal tornment. (from omniscience above, omnipotence and [1.1])

Please. This part is starting to sound silly. You can only believe this if you believe in the "you are either with me or against me" philosophy, and I don't know how many people other than yourself do.

Attacking premise [1] If one considers premise [1] to be false, this means that it is possible to be saved if one does not believe in Jesus Christ as God and in his message. It means that there are other ways of being saved, and one does not have to believe in Jesus to be saved.

This may or may not be true; again, it depends on whether you have an all-or-nothing mentality about it.

Like I said, not all Christians see things as black-and-white as you like to portray it. But I do hope you feel better having gotten things off your chest.

[imac/cheese]

The entire arguement is flawed by the fact that you assume that Jesus did not exist before He came to earth in human form. From John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” Jesus was there in the beginning before any humans were created.

This leads to your statement:
[2] It was impossible for any human that lived before Jesus Christ to believe in Jesus Christ as God and his message.

This is completely incorrect. Abraham was before Jesus and he believed in the Word of God. It is later showed in Luke that Lazarus the beggar was carried to Abraham's side when he died and that the Rich man was in Hell. This means that Abraham was saved not because he personally knew Jesus or heard the message of Jesus sacrifice, but because he responded to the Word of God.

The entire old testament tells the story of Christ. From Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac to the story of Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers to the Levitivcal code of cleansing. Christ is the central theme throughout it all.


I see your point, but many (myself included) consider organized religion to be highly damaging to humanity's progress. It has spawned hatred and violence. It has jailed geniuses, muted masters of the pen, and executed those who contradicted their own diabolical beliefs.

I believe the world will be better off with no religion at all. If, by debate, discourse and discussion, I can make one person see the world for what it is....it's all been worth it.

Most religious people believe in one god, and don't believe in dozens of others. It's just one more small step to come out of the shell and see the world, ourselves, and our universe for what they are.

I see your point, but many (myself included) consider the rejection of Jesus to be highly damaging to humanity's progress. It has spawned hatred and violence. It has jailed geniuses, muted masters of the pen, and executed those who contradicted their own diabolical beliefs.

I believe the world will be better off with more people accepting Jesus. If, by debate, discourse and discussion, I can make one person see the world for what it is...it's all been worth it.

[yg17]

I see your point, but many (myself included) consider the rejection of Jesus to be highly damaging to humanity's progress. It has spawned hatred and violence. It has jailed geniuses, muted masters of the pen, and executed those who contradicted their own diabolical beliefs.

I believe the world will be better off with more people accepting Jesus. If, by debate, discourse and discussion, I can make one person see the world for what it is...it's all been worth it.

You're blaming the victim. So much violence has been carried out against those who choose to not believe in jesus, and now it's our fault for not believing in him?

The world would be better off if everyone believed the same thing. But that's never going to happen, so don't try to kill others who don't believe the same thing you do...and that applies to all religions.

[nateDEEZY]

I believe the world will be better off with more people accepting Jesus. If, by debate, discourse and discussion, I can make one person see the world for what it is...it's all been worth it.

Couldn't agree more. I mean Thomas Jefferson admittedly had thought Jesus to be a solid foundation of morales as to how people should live there lies, please correct me if I'm wrong.

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

[yg17]

Couldn't agree more. I mean Thomas Jefferson admittedly had thought Jesus to be a solid foundation of morales as to how people should live there lies, please correct me if I'm wrong.

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

Too bad those who claim to live by the teachings of Jesus don't actually live by the teachings of Jesus.

I think by not hating someone because of their religion or sexual preference or whatever, and by wanting to help others, I'm doing a better job of living according to Jesus's teachings than any "christian" I know...and I'm Atheist.

[chrmjenkins]

A common idea many Christians seem to hold but often aren't able to articulate well runs something like, "the unfettered free will of humans generally is a greater good in the eyes of God than the individual evils that they may bring upon themselves by the exercise of free will."

This is essentially the rebuttal. The converse is this-- would those of you who do not believe want to live in a world where you had no will to not believe in God?


At least from their point of view. At a deeper level they still have the problem that their god, if he exists as they describe him, is utterly insane, a premise that would actually clear up quite a lot of their longstanding theological conundrums if only they could be persuaded to accept it.

Of course, He must be insane, right? Never mind the fact that history contains plenty of intellectuals who found no problem with the doctrines. Perhaps they were so willing to accept things on faith they deluded themselves into believing logic and reason existed where there was none?

If we believe that faith is the final end answer, we can't expect apologetics to solve the problem. In essence, they're only an articulation of the underlying beliefs we have, and as such, can only have full effect if one buys into the ideas. They merely reduce apprehension based on human logic and reason by showing faith has reasonable logical consequences.

Too bad those who claim to live by the teachings of Jesus don't actually live by the teachings of Jesus.

I think by not hating someone because of their religion or sexual preference or whatever, and by wanting to help others, I'm doing a better job of living according to Jesus's teachings than any "christian" I know...and I'm Atheist.

This fallacy again? How does the failure of believers detract whatsoever from the articles of faith themselves? Any Christian should be able to readily admit to you that they still sin. We all sin, that's why we need God's grace in the forgiveness of those sins.

[techfreak85]

The first part of the Christian bible contradicts the second part ... if Jesus is the only way to heaven, then what about everyone who lived before Jesus?

Jesus came to save everyone that has lived and sinned.
"The wages of sin is death". We die, because we sin. Before the fall man (weather literally in the garden of eaden by eating the fruit, or figuratively where we have chosen to stray away from God), there was no sickness, no death.

Jesus did not sin, yet he died. That death of someone innocent pays the price of death for those who have sinned.

Believing In God does not contradict Jesus or vice verca.

Where did everything come from? Did the Universe just magically come into existence?

I just found this.:p
http://www.conservapedia.com/images/5/59/Atheism.png

[imac/cheese]

You're blaming the victim. So much violence has been carried out against those who choose to not believe in jesus, and now it's our fault for not believing in him?

The world would be better off if everyone believed the same thing. But that's never going to happen, so don't try to kill others who don't believe the same thing you do...and that applies to all religions.

I am not blaming the vicitm and I am not making excuses for those crimes done in the name of religion.

I am stating that hatred and violence are not done by those people who are following Jesus. Anyone who cliams to be a Christian and is spawning hatred and violence is a hypocrit. Looking back at some of the worst crimes against humanity I do not see Jesus followers leading the way. The holocaust, Mao Zedong's regime, Stalin's regime, numerous wars, even the Inquisition. None of those events were led by people following Jesus. Even in the inquisition or the crusades, the people involved were not following the example of Jesus, but instead rejecting His guidance and trying to do things their own way.

[freeny]

Logic and religion are like oil and water....

[djellison]

Looking back at some of the worst crimes against humanity I do not see Jesus followers leading the way

That's the WHOLE of the Catholic church, then - directly responsible, and I mean DIRECTLY responsible for the death of millions in Africa.

You're just one god away from atheism. You don't subscribe to the dozens of other religions in the world. Yet, because of where you were brought up, the things you were told - that one God is the one you believe in. Funny - there's a guy in Mecca who thinks you're totally and utterly wrong.

You think people 'need' Jesus - yet here I am, and indeed, here are billions of people around the world - living wonderful, creative, charitable, love filled lives. Not one iota of input from your God. None.

To be so detached from reality is tragic. I hope, I really do hope that one day, you find the truth.

PS - The victims of the Asian Tsunami say 'Hi' to your God.


Who created God?


Man. Like he created Harry Potter, The Simpsons, Darth Vader, Buddah, Allah, Ishvara and the Tooth Fairy.

[yg17]

This fallacy again? How does the failure of believers detract whatsoever from the articles of faith themselves? Any Christian should be able to readily admit to you that they still sin. We all sin, that's why we need God's grace in the forgiveness of those sins.

Who's "we"? I don't sin. I'm not a sinner, so please, don't call me one.

[EricNau]

Where did everything come from? Did the Universe just magically come into existence?
Where did your god come from? Did he just magically come into existence?

[bruinsrme]

Who created God?

Man. Like he created Harry Potter, The Simpsons, Darth Vader, Buddah, Allah, Ishvara and the Tooth Fairy.

Hey leave the tooth fairy out of this, she's a little hottie

[chrmjenkins]

That's the WHOLE of the Catholic church, then - directly responsible, and I mean DIRECTLY responsible for the death of millions in Africa.

Does the Catholic church represent all of Christianity? Is the pope forcing the people to not wear condoms? Don't get me wrong, what he said is reprehensible, but he's not directly responsible.


You're just one god away from atheism. You don't subscribe to the dozens of other religions in the world. Yet, because of where you were brought up, the things you were told - that one God is the one you believe in. Funny - there's a guy in Mecca who thinks you're totally and utterly wrong.

What if you started an atheist and converted later?

Man. Like he created Harry Potter, The Simpsons, Darth Vader, Buddah, Allah, Ishvara and the Tooth Fairy.

Buddah is most certainly not a fictional creation of man. He was a prince, and his formal name was Siddhartha Gautama.

Who's "we"? I don't sin. I'm not a sinner, so please, don't call me one.

It's not like I'm singling you out. Given man's nature and the definition of sin, we all commit it. I guess you could say you don't commit sin because you have to believe God exists, and therefore sin exists, but by the definition of sin, we all commit it.

[bruinsrme]

What's at the end of the universe?

[freeny]

What's at the end of the universe?

Not sure, but I bet there is a Starbucks.

[djellison]

What if you started an atheist and converted later?

'What if...' ? EVERYONE starts an atheist. You're not born with a belief in Jesus - you don't even know who he is. You're told it as a Child, you believe it. Someone in another country might be told about another God and they'll believe in that. Someone, somewhere else might believe in another God.

Funny - isn't it - the correlation between Geography and elected Faith. It's beginning to be fuzzed with the advent of cheap long distant transport, but it's still there.

Fortunately, I can think for myself, so I figured out fairly early on that the things being said to me by religious leaders was complete and utter nonsense, and quite clearly, transparently and obviously a fictional creation of man.

It baffles, and saddens me, that everyone doesn't have the same revelation.

[chrmjenkins]

'What if...' ? EVERYONE starts an atheist. You're not born with a belief in Jesus - you don't even know who he is. You're told it as a Child, you believe it. Someone in another country might be told about another God and they'll believe in that. Someone, somewhere else might believe in another God.

Funny - isn't it - the correlation between Geography and elected Faith. It's beginning to be fuzzed with the advent of cheap long distant transport, but it's still there.

Fortunately, I can think for myself, so I figured out fairly early on that the things being said to me by religious leaders was complete and utter nonsense, and quite clearly, transparently and obviously a fictional creation of man.

It baffles, and saddens me, that everyone doesn't have the same revelation.

I think it's safe to assume anyone can see I didn't mean it that literally. I meant "What if you were not told to believe in God as a child?"

I converted from an agnostic at age 21 by reading the Bible, not by believing what everyone else told me. And the idea that people who are religious can't think for themselves is ludicrous.

[djellison]

I converted from an agnostic at age 21 by reading the Bible,

Why. What made you pick up that book and go "You know what - THIS has to be the right answer"

I've read the Bible as well. I found it to be

a) Tedious
b) MASSIVELY self contradicting
c) Full of incitements of violence, racial hatred, segregation.

Frankly -it's a fairly ugly piece of literature.

I wonder what would have happened if you picked up The Lord of the Rings instead. It'd be Frodo, not Jesus, I presume.

[chrmjenkins]

Why. What made you pick up that book and go "You know what - THIS has to be the right answer"

I've read the Bible as well. I found it to be

a) Tedious
b) MASSIVELY self contradicting
c) Full of incitements of violence, racial hatred, segregation.

Frankly -it's a fairly ugly piece of literature.

I wonder what would have happened if you picked up The Lord of the Rings instead. It'd be Frodo, not Jesus, I presume.

I didn't pick up the book and say "This is the answer." I read it first the Bible, through which God revealed Himself to me. Why did I pick it up? I was searching for the truth, and no other philosophy or religion I had otherwise been exposed to satisfied me.

[Jack Flash]

Truth be told religion is a personal decision and you should respect it as such. Same goes for sexuality. Some things people just don't want to be argued with.

[yg17]

Truth be told religion is a personal decision and you should respect it as such. Same goes for sexuality. Some things people just don't want to be argued with.

Unlike sexuality, religion is a choice so I think it's fair game.

[nateDEEZY]

Who's "we"? I don't sin. I'm not a sinner, so please, don't call me one.

You must be perfect. Sir, I congratulate you for leading a virtuous lifestyle. Sarcasm aside, hello pride.

In regards to the multiple religions that believe there the right ones…. Unfortunately it is one of those things that we will never know and until death won't find out for ourselves.


For all the myriad ways in which human beings relate to the divine, it seems there is a common denominator. It’s why I pursue the notion that God does exist but not nearly in the most common ways people tend to believe — that this higher power transcends cultural and ideological boundaries, radiating still no matter who we are or what we believe. In every religion, at its core, is the principle of Love — being to mean a sense of selfless service for a greater purpose. Some religions gear the love toward self, some only toward others, even some toward all, but the vine from which all these branches are built is Love.

To think about it in this context, is to open one’s self to the idea that this force of Nature, this ingrained impetus toward compassion and sacrifice, is in and of itself the God described by stories like Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, and many others. This higher power is a still, small voice, echoing from the realm of Heaven, where Love supersedes in all things. It is the ruler of the kingdom of paradise, where all perfection is made real and all passions made whole

…and inevitably it is fear that makes them believe their religion is the only religion actually pointing to the one and only true God…where everyone else is wrong…

Source: Link (http://onehigherpower.com/2009/01/02/in-loving-service/)

As in nature there are many things we can hypnotize about, but never fully comprehend. Equally so as in religion.

[Jack Flash]

Unlike sexuality, religion is a choice so I think it's fair game.

It's a choice made for most infants so no, not really.

[freeny]

It's a choice made for most infants so no, not really.

Please explain....

[yg17]

You must be perfect. Sir, I congratulate you for leading a virtuous lifestyle. Sarcasm aside, hello pride.

I have lived a good lifestyle. I've never hurt anyone. My only "sin" might be thinking that organized religion is a crock. But that doesn't make me a sinner.

It's a choice made for most infants so no, not really.

And when the infant grows up, they can choose a new religion or choose to not follow one. I was raised in a Jewish household, I've been Bar Mitzvahed and confirmed and all that, none of it by choice. But I grew up and was able to form my own beliefs and opinions and renounce my faith. Maybe a young kid doesn't have a choice, but every adult does.

[Macaddicttt]

I have lived a good lifestyle. I've never hurt anyone. My only "sin" might be thinking that organized religion is a crock. But that doesn't make me a sinner.

Never hurt anyone? I find that awfully hard to believe. No one is that good. You've never punched sibling or pushed a kid on the playground or said something hurtful in the moment? I find that incredibly hard to believe. You can criticize Christianity, but claiming you've lead a blameless life is hardly true or productive in any discussion.

[Pika]

Truth be told religion is a personal decision and you should respect it as such. Same goes for sexuality. Some things people just don't want to be argued with.

How about the belief that you don't count as a human being, and don't deserve any civil rights? Should we respect THAT belief?

What if I believe that I should only respect my own beliefs? Should you respect THAT belief?

What I'm trying to say is that not all beliefs should be respected.

You have a right to use YOUR freedom of speech to fight other people's speech. As long as it all stays "speech", then its all fair. As soon as someone makes the shift to actions, then that changes the type of conflict we are talking about, and now the issue is self-defense!

I believe the respecting of beliefs is the occupation of [rest of sentence removed by moderator for being unnecessarily crude]

Respect that!?

Do you respect the belief that beliefs should not always be respected?

You can't respect a belief that you consider stupid. That would be just a form of self-delusion. You can be tolerant of other people's stupid beliefs because you allow for the remote possibility that your own belief might be flawed.Christianity may be absurd but arguing against it is just as absurd. You cannot EVER have a logical argument when one party falls back on faith, it's a personal thing that cannot be debated.

I say, let them believe whatever they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone(or their freedoms which it sometimes does).

IMO, what you meant to convey No1451 is that disagreements regarding who believes what, should be addressed in a civil manner and the person also treated in a civil manner. Especially if one party is determined to influence the mentality or thoughts of the other party.

However, we tend to invalidate the person along with challenging their beliefs and especially when it comes to religious persons. I suppose because the majority of religious folks thrive on declaring themselves the holders of a copyright on character and morality.

Their beliefs in fact portray the rest of us as immoral and evil human beings, They go as far as denying the capacity for mankind to be good and do good. Basically, it is incompatible and contradictory for a Christian to respect my beliefs or yours. Even to consider for a moment that you and I are capable of good thoughts and acts of goodness.

Such beliefs demean us in their eyes even though we are supposed to unite in the face of adversity and difficult life circumstances as fellow human beings.

It is very hard to respect any person who refers to you as "wicked" no matter how much goodness you will have tried to dispense. No matter how many attempts you have made to show your well intentioned gestures. Such climate of denial and rejection of our capacity for good can only lead to confrontations.

As an aside , I am a supporter of the co existence movement which does not demand or require that unity be accomplished under uniformity of thoughts and beliefs. But I do appreciate your candor, No1451.

[colinmack]

Just to have a little fun...

If we want to stick with a black and white debate, the entire original argument falls apart due to one key logic error:

- many central parts of the argument are based on the notion of an arrow of time ("He had foreknowledge...", "God knows in advance...", "people that lived before Jesus Christ will suffer eternal torment...", etc.)

- due to His omnipotence, God wouldn't be subject to or required to operate within an arrow of time (with some support from quantum theory, given that time as we know it apparently didn't even exist before the universe was created...by Him)

So...the whole 'ultimate argument' sort of falls apart there, and there is no longer any inconsistency or contradiction.

(oh - and you'll probably burn in hell too, sorry about that...) :D

[it5five]

What's at the end of the universe?

Milliways

[yg17]

Never hurt anyone? I find that awfully hard to believe. No one is that good. You've never punched sibling or pushed a kid on the playground or said something hurtful in the moment? I find that incredibly hard to believe. You can criticize Christianity, but claiming you've lead a blameless life is hardly true or productive in any discussion.


Oh, come on...everyone does that, and if that's all it takes to be a sinner, well, then we're all going to hell :rolleyes: By sins, I mean murder, stealing, actually hurting someone (not a little playground punch in 3rd grade) crap like that. I don't consider what you mentioned sins.

[Macaddicttt]

Oh, come on...everyone does that, and if that's all it takes to be a sinner, well, then we're all going to hell :rolleyes: By sins, I mean murder, stealing, actually hurting someone (not a little playground punch in 3rd grade) crap like that. I don't consider what you mentioned sins.

Well, then why are you using words like "sin" that have Christian overtones if you don't think of what Christians consider sins are sins. In Christianity those qualify as sins, so you can stop taking offense when a Christian in a Christian context says that we're all sinners.

And judging from your post, you know nothing about Christianity if you think that in Christianity commit a sin means that you're going to hell, so maybe you should stop talking about it like you did.

[yg17]

sin1   /sɪn/ –noun
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.

Well, definition one is out, since I'm not religious. Two, I can agree with the moral part a little bit. But three is what I base my definition of sin on. So no, I haven't sinned. Maybe in your belief system I have, but based on my beliefs, no, I'm not a sinner and would rather not be called one.

[FreeState]

How does the failure of believers detract whatsoever from the articles of faith themselves? Any Christian should be able to readily admit to you that they still sin. We all sin, that's why we need God's grace in the forgiveness of those sins.

How do you rectify this with the Bible? In particular Matthew 7:16 (by their fruits you will know them)? Jesus does not say believe me and all is well - he says believe in me and "go and sin no more". (John 8)

[Pika]

- due to His omnipotence, God wouldn't be subject to or required to operate within an arrow of time (with some support from quantum theory, given that time as we know it apparently didn't even exist before the universe was created...by Him)

Without Time God never had the Time to decide to create Time.

- God is defined as The Conscious First Cause -
- The First Cause is That which caused Time.
- Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.
- A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
- Time is the measure of change.

Premises:

Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.

Conclusions:

- Time is required for Change.
- A Decision is a Change.
- Decisions require Time.
- Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
- Consciousness requires Time.
- God is Conscious.
- God requires Time.
- God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
- God isn't the cause of Time.
- God isn't The First Cause.
- If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
- God doesn't exist.

[yojitani]

J
I just found this.:p
http://www.conservapedia.com/images/5/59/Atheism.png

I'm an atheist and this made me laugh. Insofar as some people simplify religion, this is a cute simplification of atheism.

[Macaddicttt]

sin1   /sɪn/ –noun
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.

Well, definition one is out, since I'm not religious. Two, I can agree with the moral part a little bit. But three is what I base my definition of sin on. So no, I haven't sinned. Maybe in your belief system I have, but based on my beliefs, no, I'm not a sinner and would rather not be called one.

Come on. You've never regretted anything you've ever done? You know, you picked the definition with the broadest application. I mean look at the example: It's a sin to waste time. You've never wasted time and regretted it?

And I have a hard time with you being legitimately offended by being called a sinner by someone else's viewpoint. To a Muslim, you're an infidel, does that offend you? It shouldn't, since given the context, it's true. So it's absolutely ridiculous for you to take offense to a Christian who says, "We're all sinners" because if you understand that context, it's true. It makes no sense to redefine the word "sin" to your belief system when it clearly has a religious tone to it, and it especially makes no sense when you take offense at being called a sinner just because you co-opted a word and made it mean something different.

So according to Charles Manson, he committed no sin, so we shouldn't offend him by calling his actions sins because he's redefined sin? No. That's ridiculous.

Really the thing that makes no sense is that you've redefined sin so as just about no one in this world is a sinner, only criminals are. Everyone else, including you, are blameless. Isn't that a little disingenuous. Why is this world so screwed up if you only sin when you kill someone or steal something? Your narrow definition of sin has no impact or bearing on the world. All you have now is another word to call murders.

[Rt&Dzine]

I'm an atheist and this made me laugh. Insofar as some people simplify religion, this is a cute simplification of atheism.

I can barely read it because the leading is too tight.

[yg17]

Come on. You've never regretted anything you've ever done? You know, you picked the definition with the broadest application. I mean look at the example: It's a sin to waste time. You've never wasted time and regretted it?

And I have a hard time with you being legitimately offended by being called a sinner by someone else's viewpoint. To a Muslim, you're an infidel, does that offend you? It shouldn't, since given the context, it's true. So it's absolutely ridiculous for you to take offense to a Christian who says, "We're all sinners" because if you understand that context, it's true. It makes no sense to redefine the word "sin" to your belief system when it clearly has a religious tone to it, and it especially makes no sense when you take offense at being called a sinner just because you co-opted a word and made it mean something different.

So according to Charles Manson, he committed no sin, so we shouldn't offend him by calling his actions sins because he's redefined sin? No. That's ridiculous.

Really the thing that makes no sense is that you've redefined sin so as just about no one in this world is a sinner, only criminals are. Everyone else, including you, are blameless. Isn't that a little disingenuous. Why is this world so screwed up if you only sin when you kill someone or steal something? Your narrow definition of sin has no impact or bearing on the world. All you have now is another word to call murders.

OK, fair enough, but who are you or any other Christian to decide who is and isn't a sinner? What gives you that authority to say I'm a sinner?

[nateDEEZY]

However, we tend to invalidate the person along with challenging their beliefs and especially when it comes to religious persons. I suppose because the majority of religious folks thrive on declaring themselves the holders of a copyright on character and morality.

Their beliefs in fact portray the rest of us as immoral and evil human beings, They go as far as denying the capacity for mankind to be good and do good. Basically, it is incompatible and contradictory for a Christian to respect my beliefs or yours. Even to consider for a moment that you and I are capable of good thoughts and acts of goodness.

Such beliefs demean us in their eyes even though we are supposed to unite in the face of adversity and difficult life circumstances as fellow human beings.


In regards to them,

...regarding anyone who cites religious doctrine as a foundation for doing the “wrong thing.” That, to me, is part and parcel of the negative aspects of religion and can be correllated to “mob mentality.” However, these kinds of negatives in religious adherence are the same thing Jesus rejected and taught against in the Pharisees and Saducees. Is it a true story? I don’t know, as I wasn’t there. However, the wisdom in the story is universal, pervasive, and has stood the test of time — I don’t know of many other stories to have stood under such tests.

They are wrong.

OK, fair enough, but who are you or any other Christian to decide who is and isn't a sinner? What gives you that authority to say I'm a sinner?

Matt 7:2-5 "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged [if we judge with an evil heart or dark intent, His judgment of us will reflect it; if we judge nobly and honestly, His judgment of us will reflect that, too], and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you [if we use extremes or exaggerations or other unfair means, our judgment will reflect it]. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye [point out his sins, "minor" in Jesus' example here] and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye [our own sins, even and especially those we will not admit, magnified by our selective blindness]? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' [tell him of his "minor" sins] when all the time there is a plank in your own eye [that there are greater or the same sins in our own lives which we do nothing about or think we are above]? You hypocrite* [pointing out the sins of others while by pretense we think of ourselves as above sin], first take the plank out of your own eye [sincerely ask the Lord for forgiveness and learn and live the Truth and Light by His Word], and then you will see clearly [be in a righteous position] to remove the speck from your brother's eye [to judge and to help him out of his bondage to sin]." At Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan, Jesus was talking to the multitudes gathered there after hearing of His message and of His healings to beseech them to not become like the pharisees and hypocrites who think they are above sin.

The previous poster already made a point, why do you care if a Christian calls you a sinner and a Muslim calls you an infadel?

[Macaddicttt]

OK, fair enough, but who are you or any other Christian to decide who is and isn't a sinner? What gives you that authority to say I'm a sinner?

The point is that there's no point in being offended by a Christian saying, "We're all sinners." Sure, Christians are going to squabble about exactly what a sin is, but all Christians agree that no one has not sinned (least of all because of original sin, but that's another topic). And it makes no sense to be offended by a Christian calling you a sinner because anger is a sin, sloth is a sin, gluttony is a sin, etc. There are a million sins, even sins of omission. And to a Christian, you seek to avoid all sins, knowing that it's impossible, but also knowing that God will forgive you for them. But now I'm getting off on a tangent.

Christians are going to call you a sinner, and there's no reason to be offended by it since it is from that person's perspective. If you want to disagree, based on your belief system, fine. You can call me a sinner based on your belief system. It's a matter of getting lost in translation. What's happening is this: Someone calls you a sinner, meaning that you've not helped the poor enough, got mad at your mother once, pushed a kid on the playground, whatever; you're interpreting that by your definition of a sinner (i.e. that person just said I did something on the level of murder), and becoming offended. That makes no sense. It has nothing to do with authority, only perspective.

Now take it the other way: If you call me a sinner, I shouldn't interpret that as not helping the poor enough/getting mad at your mother once/pushing a kid on the playground and think, "Yeah, that's true." I should be thinking, now that I know your definition of sin, "He thinks I'm immoral on the level of a murderer," and I probably should be offended.

My only point is that a word like "sinner" demands context, and taking it out of context just to be offended by it makes no sense.

[yg17]

I'm not offended by it, I just don't think it's anyone's place to call someone else a sinner.

[Gelfin]

I'm not offended by it, I just don't think it's anyone's place to call someone else a sinner.

Christians are technically supposed to agree with you.

[chrmjenkins]

Christians are technically supposed to agree with you.

You're not judging someone if it applies to everyone. Am I making a character assessment of you by calling you human?

[skunk]

Christians are going to call you a sinner, and there's no reason to be offended by it since it is from that person's perspectiveHowever, we have had many self-professed Christians here who have called homosexuals "sinners" on the grounds of their sexuality. This may be their belief, but it is also offensive. Lying, stealing, vanity, greed, anger, pride, bearing false witness, all these are acknowledged as transgressions in almost any ethical system, and many of them are behaviours which all of us have indulged in from time to time: nobody should get upset at the recognition of human frailty, but to describe someone's sexual orientation as a sin is something else entirely.

[Gelfin]

You're not judging someone if it applies to everyone. Am I making a character assessment of you by calling you human?

Making it your business whether some specific other person accepts your general judgment is not a loophole to the principle.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Christians are technically supposed to agree with you.

Christians aren't supposed to single people out because of their sins, but they also understand that there isn't a single person on the earth (with the exception of those with mental retardation, and very small children) who will go through life without doing something wrong, therefore we're all sinners, every one of us. For that to mean anything, you have to understand it in context.

SLC

[SLC Flyfishing]

However, we have had many self-professed Christians here who have called homosexuals "sinners" on the grounds of their sexuality. This may be their belief, but it is also offensive. Lying, stealing, vanity, greed, anger, pride, bearing false witness, all these are acknowledged as transgressions in almost any ethical system, and many of them are behaviours which all of us have indulged in from time to time: nobody should get upset at the recognition of human frailty, but to describe someone's sexual orientation as a sin is something else entirely.

We have many self-professed Christians here who have called practicing homosexuality a "sin". It's the act, not the urge, that's the sin.

SLC

[JLatte]

We have many self-professed Christians here who have called practicing homosexuality a "sin". It's the act, not the urge, that's the sin.

SLC

I predict this thread will turn in a very different direction very soon.

[Macaddicttt]

I'm not offended by it, I just don't think it's anyone's place to call someone else a sinner.

That's because of your own definition. Central to Christianity is the notion of sin, and the ideal that, "We are all sinners." Christianity doesn't (or at least shouldn't) make a point of saying, "You are a sinner because of (blank)." It seems like central to your morality is that nothing's really that big of a deal until you steal or kill. You believe in personal morality, Christians believe in universal morality and the discussion about what that morality is.

[Shotglass]

Your argument may be very well thought out, but your work is useless for two reasons:
1 - you don't need to be so detailed, everyone knows the bible contradicts itself. You just have to make people understand that this means the bible can't be true, or "the word of god".
2 - Any Christian, when confronted with this sort of argument, will end the defense of their religion in saying: "well, it's a faith issue".


Another thing:
I just found this.:p
http://www.conservapedia.com/images/5/59/Atheism.pngThis is both false and ridiculous.

[Pika]

We have many self-professed Christians here who have called practicing homosexuality a "sin". It's the act, not the urge, that's the sin.

SLC

I refuse to respect your belief that homosexuality is a sin.

Why don't you show you are a bigger person than me by respecting my belief that homosexuality is not a sin?

Well that's a bit closer, but still the question is who is harmed in a homosexual relationship? Can you please answer the question?

So God creates a person, makes sexuality on of their most basic needs as a human being, then tweaks them so they have desires that they're not allowed to fulfill? And if that person seeks "deliverance" refuses to heal them?

That's called sadism.

[Gelfin]

Christians aren't supposed to single people out because of their sins, but they also understand that there isn't a single person on the earth (with the exception of those with mental retardation, and very small children) who will go through life without doing something wrong, therefore we're all sinners, every one of us. For that to mean anything, you have to understand it in context.

SLC

The question wasn't whether it's okay for you to believe everyone is a sinner. The question was whether it is any of your business that someone else does not.

Besides, I believe it has already been suggested that your religion considers denial of universal sin to be a form of pride. Therefore, criticizing such denial is itself judging someone else's sin.

[Macaddicttt]

However, we have had many self-professed Christians here who have called homosexuals "sinners" on the grounds of their sexuality. This may be their belief, but it is also offensive. Lying, stealing, vanity, greed, anger, pride, bearing false witness, all these are acknowledged as transgressions in almost any ethical system, and many of them are behaviours which all of us have indulged in from time to time: nobody should get upset at the recognition of human frailty, but to describe someone's sexual orientation as a sin is something else entirely.

And your point is...?

This isn't a thread about Christianity and homosexuality, and it makes no sense to make every Christianity thread about homosexuality.

[kainjow]

Truth be told religion is a personal decision and you should respect it as such.

Actually I don't believe this is the case for the majority of people who claim to be religious. Most people grow up surrounded by a certain religion and have its beliefs pushed into their mind from a young age. This is not a choice IMO. Sure once they become an adult and can think for themselves they can choose to change, but most don't because it takes effort to educate yourself on the alternatives. Plus it disconnects you entirely from the community you grew accustomed to.

I don't know a single Christian who made the choice between Atheism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or any of the other beliefs. It was either an emotional decision based on peer pressure, or they were told what to believe before their minds were mature enough to know the difference.

[dukebound85]

Your argument may be very well thought out, but your work is useless for two reasons:
1 - you don't need to be so detailed, everyone knows the bible contradicts itself. You just have to make people understand that this means the bible can't be true, or "the word of god".
2 - Any Christian, when confronted with this sort of argument, will end the defense of their religion in saying: "well, it's a faith issue".


Another thing:
This is both false and ridiculous.

everyone thinks they are right huh?

you on one hand criticize Christianity while in the same post, say a photo summing up atheism is ridiculous and false

[skunk]

And your point is...?My point is that if one is a homosexual, Christian or not, one has every reason to be offended by sanctimonious assertions by so-called Christians that they - and their "god" - "forgive" one's benighted sexual deviation.

[SLC Flyfishing]

The question wasn't whether it's okay for you to believe everyone is a sinner. The question was whether it is any of your business that someone else does not.

Besides, I believe it has already been suggested that your religion considers denial of universal sin to be a form of pride. Therefore, criticizing such denial is itself judging someone else's sin.

It's not any of my business whether or not somebody else thinks everyone is a sinner, I could really care less what somebody else thinks about the topic. But what's happened here is somebody said publicly that they don't believe that everyone is a sinner, thus making it everyone's business. I really don't care at all, but I thought I'd take a shot at explaining what Christians mean when they say everyone is a sinner (since the person appeared to be taking offense to that statement), nothing more. I'm not sure where you read into my statement that I was making it my business whether or not he/she believed that everyone is a sinner, or that I even care what he/she believes.

And I also don't know where you read into my statement, a criticism of the denial of universal sin. It was merely an explanation.

SLC

[Gelfin]

And I also don't know where you read into my statement, a criticism of the denial of universal sin. It was merely an explanation.

Well, you did jump into the middle of an exchange in which several other people were involved. A handful of posters made an effort to get yg17 to retract his claim that he is not a sinner on the basis of their belief that he is required to consider himself one.

Your own faith says it is not their business to do so.

[Shotglass]

everyone thinks they are right huh?

you on one hand criticize Christianity while in the same post, say a photo summing up atheism is ridiculous and falseI fail to see the logic of your comparison. The atheism picture is ridiculous because of its childish over-simplification of the big-bang-theory. It is false because the way in which atheism is depicted here is, well, false.
And yes, I am right. I was raised Christian and renounced my faith not too long ago. I have discussed this with many of my Christian friends, and every single one of them exhibited exactly the same defense mechanisms I listed in my post.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Well, you did jump into the middle of an exchange in which several other people were involved. A handful of posters made an effort to get yg17 to retract his claim that he is not a sinner on the basis of their belief that he is required to consider himself one.

Your own faith says it is not their business to do so.

From what I read, a handful of posters made an effort to explain what "we're all sinners" means. I didn't see anyone who tried to get him to retract any claim. I did see someone ask him if he'd ever hurt anyone and then explain why that's a sin to a Christian, but there was no effort made to get yg17 to retract his statement.

But maybe I'm confused now.

SLC

[SLC Flyfishing]

It is false because the way in which atheism is depicted here is, well, false.

As opposed to the way religion is depicted oftentimes by members of the forum? Actually I'd say it's about par for the course!

SLC

[Macaddicttt]

My point is that if one is a homosexual, Christian or not, one has every reason to be offended by sanctimonious assertions by so-called Christians that they - and their "god" - "forgive" one's benighted sexual deviation.

My point was that you're needlessly bringing in a false misconception of Christianity concerning homosexuality (conveniently overlooking the explanation that sexual orientation is not considered a sin, only homosexual acts) in a thread that had nothing to do with homosexuality, simply to insult Christianity with BS accusations that obscure the main discussion.

[Gelfin]

From what I read, a handful of posters made an effort to explain what "we're all sinners" means. I didn't see anyone who tried to get him to retract any claim. I did see someone ask him if he'd ever hurt anyone and then explain why that's a sin to a Christian, but there was no effort made to get yg17 to retract his statement.

But maybe I'm confused now.

SLC

Ah, right, for as Jesus said, "thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye, but in lieu of doing either, feel free to pontificate to thy brother about the church's position on bits of wood of assorted sizes in people's eyes, for verily that is cool by Me."

[Macaddicttt]

Ah, right, for as Jesus said, "thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye, but in lieu of doing either, feel free to pontificate to thy brother about the church's position on bits of wood of assorted sizes in people's eyes, for verily that is cool by Me."

I don't see how defending the statement "We are all sinners" is "pontificat[ing] to thy brother about the church's position on bits of wood of assorted sizes in people's eyes." It's merely discussing a core tenant of Christianity.

[colinmack]

Without Time God never had the Time to decide to create Time.

- God is defined as The Conscious First Cause -
- The First Cause is That which caused Time.
- Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision.
- A Decision is the action of changing ones mind from undecided to decided.
- Time is the measure of change.

Premises:

Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.

Conclusions:

- Time is required for Change.
- A Decision is a Change.
- Decisions require Time.
- Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
- Consciousness requires Time.
- God is Conscious.
- God requires Time.
- God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
- God isn't the cause of Time.
- God isn't The First Cause.
- If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
- God doesn't exist.

This actually reads kind of like a Monty Python sketch...

"So, logically..."
"If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood."
"And therefore?"
"A witch!"

...both the definitions and the conclusions are questionable at best, and I wouldn't call them logically coherent or defensible.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I refuse to respect your belief that homosexuality is a sin.

Fair enough, I don't have any reason to expect that you would.

Why don't you show you are a bigger person than me by respecting my belief that homosexuality is not a sin?

Consider it respected, unless you feel that in order for me to respect that belief I also have to adopt it. I'm glad that you have a belief relative to the matter, and I'm perfectly fine with it being a different belief than my own. Did you assume that I didn't respect your belief?

Well that's a bit closer, but still the question is who is harmed in a homosexual relationship? Can you please answer the question?

The people harmed in the homosexual relationship are the people involved in it, they are harmed spiritually and at times physically.

So God creates a person, makes sexuality on of their most basic needs as a human being, then tweaks them so they have desires that they're not allowed to fulfill? And if that person seeks "deliverance" refuses to heal them?

That's called sadism.

I reject the notion that God creates anyone born with desires that when acted upon, will prevent them from returning to him, so I can't respond to that in a way that's going to win your approval. Needless to say, you should be able see what I believe here.

SLC

[Kardashian]

In my opinion, Christianity is crazy.

The amount of people who answer arguments against homophobia with "you can argue with me - but you can't argue with G-d" is f-ing ridiculous.

Even today.

Bat**** crazy!

Everything in that little book is a contradiction.

[dukebound85]

I fail to see the logic of your comparison. The atheism picture is ridiculous because of its childish over-simplification of the big-bang-theory. It is false because the way in which atheism is depicted here is, well, false.
And yes, I am right. I was raised Christian and renounced my faith not too long ago. I have discussed this with many of my Christian friends, and every single one of them exhibited exactly the same defense mechanisms I listed in my post.

LOL yes, everyone believes they are right, thanks for illustrating my point perfectly

[Kardashian]

SLC Flyfishing, doesn't the bible also say a that people who take the lords name in vain will be stoned to death? And the same of an unmarried woman who has sex? Or children who misbehave?

Its all a pile of crap.

So this whole "if a man lies with another man" rubbish shouldn't be taken literally either.

Wake up and take notice of my sig.

[Gelfin]

I don't see how defending the statement "We are all sinners" is "pontificat[ing] to thy brother about the church's position on bits of wood of assorted sizes in people's eyes." It's merely discussing a core tenant of Christianity.

No defense was offered. The statement was asserted in the context of correcting another individual's statement that he does not believe himself to be a sinner. When he said he did not accept that doctrine, it was asserted repeatedly further, despite his clear objections.

There is simply stating your belief in response to a general inquiry, and then there is taking someone else to task for not sharing that belief. When someone says, "in my religion, we do not hold that all people are sinners," and you say, "funny, in my religion we do," then that is good faith sharing of information. When someone says, "I do not believe I am a sinner," and you say, "yes you are, because my religion says you are," then you've crossed the boundary into judgment.

Much Christian "non-judgmentalism" in fact tends to take the form of very strident and pointedly directed sharing of individual viewpoints. It's a brilliant strategy. God clearly would never see through passive-aggression.

[SLC Flyfishing]

SLC Flyfishing, doesn't the bible also say a that people who take the lords name in vain will be stoned to death? And the same of an unmarried woman who has sex? Or children who misbehave?

Its all a pile of crap.

So this whole "if a man lies with another man" rubbish shouldn't be taken literally either.

Wake up and take notice of my sig.

Kardashian,

I believe that all those things happened as part of Jewish law and custom. If you understood anything about Christianity, you'd know that Christ came to earth, taught us, then paid the ultimate price for our sins, and by sacrificing his life for our sins he fulfilled the law for each of us. We no longer are responsible for paying such a high price to gain forgiveness because of the intercession which Christ made on our behalf.

Had Christ never come, I imagine that the prescription for obtaining forgiveness for those sins would be very much the same now as it was then.

So while Christians no longer practice the punishment for sin as prescribed in the Old Testament, we still classify the same behaviors as sin.

SLC

[Macaddicttt]

No defense was offered. The statement was asserted in the context of correcting another individual's statement that he does not believe himself to be a sinner. When he said he did not accept that doctrine, it was asserted repeatedly further, despite his clear objections.

There is simply stating your belief in response to a general inquiry, and then there is taking someone else to task for not sharing that belief. When someone says, "in my religion, we do not hold that all people are sinners," and you say, "funny, in my religion we do," then that is good faith sharing of information. When someone says, "I do not believe I am a sinner," and you say, "yes you are, because my religion says you are," then you've crossed the boundary into judgment.

Much Christian "non-judgmentalism" in fact tends to take the form of very strident and pointedly directed sharing of individual viewpoints. It's a brilliant strategy. God clearly would never see through passive-aggression.

Not exactly what happened. One person said, "We are all sinners," and another said, "Excuse me? We? Speak for yourself, but I'm no sinner." Then we cleared up the misunderstanding amongst ourselves. That is, until you took it upon yourself to butt in for no apparent reason and accuse us of something else entirely. For what purpose, I'm not sure. We've figured out our misunderstanding, even if the route wasn't the best possible. There was misunderstanding on both sides. Let it go.

[Macaddicttt]

So while Christians no longer practice the punishment for sin as prescribed in the Old Testament, we still classify the same behaviors as sin.

As a Christian, I completely disagree with this. The same behaviors are not still sins, and "it says so in the Old Testament" is no defense of Christianity condemning homosexual acts as sins or any other act as a sin. Jesus replaced the entire Law, not just the punishments. I'm not saying that he dissolved the Law, but put a new one in place. According to what you've said here, eating lobster is still a sin, but the punishment just doesn't apply. According to this statement, Christians should still be striving to keep kosher.

[SLC Flyfishing]

As a Christian, I completely disagree with this. The same behaviors are not still sins, and "it says so in the Old Testament" is no defense of Christianity condemning homosexual acts as sins or any other act as a sin. Jesus replaced the entire Law, not just the punishments. I'm not saying that he dissolved the Law, but put a new one in place. According to what you've said here, eating lobster is still a sin, but the punishment just doesn't apply. According to this statement, Christians should still be striving to keep kosher.

Yeah I suppose you're right, I always tend to focus on the 10 commandments when talking about the Old Testament and sin in Christianity. I forget about all those dietary rules, and some of the other more obscure laws.

And I was mainly responding to the things listed in Kardashians post.

SLC

[Kardashian]

So while Christians no longer practice the punishment for sin as prescribed in the Old Testament, we still classify the same behaviors as sin.

How can you support something which had that written anyway. Its absurd. Your Churches let any old woman walk in and marry now - so why not Gay people as well?

So, if a child was to be stoned to death, its fine, its in the name of your bible so its all well and good? They had it coming kinda thing?

Because you've relaxed your 'rules' on virgins and children - maybe you should relax them on homosexuality as well.

Not that it bothers me, I'm Jewish - my religion lets me walk into my synagogue tomorrow and marry my partner in the support of my friends, family and G-d.

I think Christianity is one of the most dangerous things in the world - the way its still played out today.

[SLC Flyfishing]

How can you support something which had that written anyway. Its absurd. Your Churches let any old woman walk in and marry now - so why not Gay people as well?

So, if a child was to be stoned to death, its fine, its in the name of your bible so its all well and good? They had it coming kinda thing?

Because you've relaxed your 'rules' on virgins and children - maybe you should relax them on homosexuality as well.

Not that it bothers me, I'm Jewish - my religion lets me walk into my synagogue tomorrow and marry my partner in the support of my friends, family and G-d.

I think Christianity is one of the most dangerous things in the world - the way its still played out today.

My church hasn't relaxed it's rules on Virgins and Children. It's still a sin to save sex outside of marriage in my church, and it's still a sin to dishonor your parents in my church. You won't see condoning of those behaviors anywhere in my church. The difference is that we don't stone people to death when they confess as was done in Old Testament times; but we don't stone Homosexuals either. Not sure what you're trying to get at here.

SLC

[EricNau]

I forget about all those dietary rules, and some of the other more obscure laws.

SLC
Why do you ignore some laws, while vehemently adhere to others?

[Kardashian]

My church hasn't relaxed it's rules on Virgins and Children. It's still a sin to save sex outside of marriage in my church, and it's still a sin to dishonor your parents in my church. You won't see condoning of those behaviors anywhere in my church. The difference is that we don't stone people to death when they confess as was done in Old Testament times; but we don't stone Homosexuals either. Not sure what you're trying to get at here.

SLC

Your religion isn't running around protesting about non-virgins or misbehaving children - but it is about gay people. Its giving money and its time to 'save' us and take our rights as tax paying human beings away.

Its a shame your religion isn't less contradictory and more progressive.

I can't wait to witness the changes throughout my life time - in the next 50 years this small minded attitude will be a thing of the past. I'm glad the children I will someday have with my same-sex partner won't have to face as much prejudice.

You're becoming a minority.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Your religion isn't running around protesting about non-virgins or misbehaving children - but it is about gay people. Its giving money and its time to 'save' us and take our rights as tax paying human beings away.

Its a shame your religion isn't less contradictory and more progressive.

I can't wait to witness the changes throughout my life time - in the next 50 years this small minded attitude will be a thing of the past. I'm glad the children I will someday have with my same-sex partner won't have to face as much prejudice.

You're becoming a minority.

Actually, my church does spend a great deal of time, money and effort to combat heterosexual sex outside of marriage, but the news doesn't see it fit for reporting so you don't hear about it over there in the UK.

It goes on all day everyday, because according to my faith (I guess I can't speak for all christian denominations) fornication and adultery are sins which in the eyes of god are very much the same as a homosexual act. In the end, I'd say that a higher amount of time, money and effort goes into combating adultery and fornication than was ever spent on gay marriage issues, it's a much much more prevalent issue. There is also a large effort by my religion put into combating pornography for similar reasons.

As for disrespectful children, every year at our conference there are a handful of speakers who speak to young people about being respectful to their parents.

SLC

Why do you ignore some laws, while vehemently adhere to others?

Because as MacAddict pointed out, they weren't continued as part of Christ's new law, but some things were.

SLC

[Kardashian]

Actually, my church does spend a great deal of time, money and effort to combat heterosexual sex outside of marriage, but the news doesn't see it fit for reporting so you don't hear about it over there in the UK.

No. Its because I have rights here, rights which people like you and your church haven't managed to take away.

It goes on all day everyday, because according to my faith (I guess I can't speak for all christian denominations) fornication and adultery are sins which in the eyes of god are very much the same as a homosexual act. In the end, I'd say that a higher amount of time, money and effort goes into combating adultery and fornication than was ever spent on gay marriage issues, it's a much much more prevalent issue. There is also a large effort by my religion put into combating pornography for similar reasons.

As for disrespectful children, every year at our conference there are a handful of speakers who speak to young people about being respectful to their parents.


I really should be respectful to you - but I can't. The more I read what you write, the more scared I become of you and what you're supporting.

The only sinful people in all of this are the ones who follow your beliefs that we need to be stopped or controlled.

It is your minority thinking which needs to be controlled and stopped. It is dangerous.

From what you've just written I feel very sorry for you and anyone associated with your church.

[SLC Flyfishing]

From what you've just written I feel very sorry for you and anyone associated with your church.

I sincerely appreciate your concern!

SLC

[EricNau]

Because as MacAddict pointed out, they weren't continued as part of Christ's new law, but some things were.

SLC
Just like Jesus explicitly states, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:11-12, NIV)?

I wonder, does your church oppose divorce as vehemently as it opposes homosexuality? Furthermore, if a law were to be introduced to revoke the right of married couples to divorce, and invalidate past divorces, do you think it would pass? Would you want it to pass?

[SLC Flyfishing]

Just like Jesus explicitly states, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:11-12, NIV)?

I wonder, does your church oppose divorce as vehemently as it opposes homosexuality? Furthermore, if a law were to be introduced to revoke the right of married couples to divorce, and invalidate past divorces, do you think it would pass? Would you want it to pass?

Yes my church opposes divorce very much! There are cases in which it is necessary, but in general it's not favored by my church.

I'm not sure about the law, seems like the possibility of divorce needs to remain open incase one of the spouses is abusive or otherwise unfit or a danger to the other. On those grounds alone I suppose I wouldn't support a legal ban on divorce, and I don't think my church as a whole would either.

SLC

[EricNau]

Yes my church opposes divorce very much! There are cases in which it is necessary, but in general it's not favored by my church.

SLC
Is it permitted for any reason?

[Macaddicttt]

Just like Jesus explicitly states, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:11-12, NIV)?

I wonder, does your church oppose divorce as vehemently as it opposes homosexuality? Furthermore, if a law were to be introduced to revoke the right of married couples to divorce, and invalidate past divorces, do you think it would pass? Would you want it to pass?

Mine does, and as far as my Church is concerned, civil divorce is different than religious divorce. Civil divorce is technically allowed (but discouraged), and religious divorce is not, meaning that you cannot be married in my Church if you have previously been divorced.

And no, I do not think such a law would pass due to the increased prevalence of divorce as it has become legal and socially accepted. Mentioning divorce works against you as it shows how once you legalize something, it quickly becomes socially acceptable and more people have qualms about it. Similarly, the minute you legalize same-sex marriages, homosexual sex becomes more and more socially acceptable and fewer people will have qualms about it.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Is it permitted for any reason?

Yes, in cases of spousal or child abuse I'm fairly sure that it's supported, and in many cases likely encouraged. It's also "permitted" for any reason that the couple might have, but the bishop (local authority) will actively try and get the couple to work things out, and discourage a hasty divorce. Depending on the circumstances, church disciplinary action may even take place.

I know that even in cases of adultery, some effort will be made to assist the couple in attempting to work past it, often times unsuccessfully (which is understandable).

Mine does, and as far as my Church is concerned, civil divorce is different than religious divorce. Civil divorce is technically allowed (but discouraged), and religious divorce is not, meaning that you cannot be married in my Church if you have previously been divorced.

It's similar in my church, once you've been married in the church (well for us that means sealed together in the temple) you aren't permitted to do it again once divorced except in very rare exceptions which I can explain if anyone wants to know. A person can be married in the church building by a bishop but that amounts to nothing more than a civil marriage and isn't viewed in the same light, if a divorce results, then another marriage is acceptable.

SLC

[EricNau]

Mine does, and as far as my Church is concerned, civil divorce is different than religious divorce. Civil divorce is technically allowed (but discouraged), and religious divorce is not, meaning that you cannot be married in my Church if you have previously been divorced.
Why then is civil marriage not separate from religious marriage?

And no, I do not think such a law would pass due to the increased prevalence of divorce as it has become legal and socially accepted. Mentioning divorce works against you as it shows how once you legalize something, it quickly becomes socially acceptable and more people have qualms about it. Similarly, the minute you legalize same-sex marriages, homosexual sex becomes more and more socially acceptable and fewer people will have qualms about it.
It would only work against me if same-sex marriage had the same negative impact on society as divorce; instead, it simply highlights the hypocrisy of the situation and the church.

[iJohnHenry]

Civil divorce is fiduciary, Religious divorce is a sin against God. Simple.

[kastenbrust]

Civil divorce is fiduciary, Religious divorce is a sin against God. Simple.

It depends how you define religious divorce, i would define religious divorce as turning away from God and leaving the church, however certain radical ultra religionists would tell you that getting divorced from another person is religious divorce.

[SLC Flyfishing]

It depends how you define religious divorce, i would define religious divorce as turning away from God and leaving the church, however certain radical ultra religionists would tell you that getting divorced from another person is religious divorce.

Sure religious divorce could mean that one "divorces himself from religion" but in the sense that macaddict used the term it means that if you get married by the church, you understand and agree that it's for life and you'll not be permitted to quit and try it again with someone else, at least not with the church's blessing.

SLC

[techfreak85]

Where did your god come from? Did he just magically come into existence?

He is the beginning and the end. even idk where he came from, but frankly, it makes more sense then the universe just happening.

[Macaddicttt]

Why then is civil marriage not separate from religious marriage?

I ask myself the same question.

It would only work against me if same-sex marriage had the same negative impact on society as divorce; instead, it simply highlights the hypocrisy of the situation and the church.

It could be argued that same-sex marriage has the same negative impact on family life as legalizing divorce did: further distancing the act of sex from conception and creation of a family, and further making the act of sex about mere pleasure. Also, for one who thinks that homosexual acts are immoral, it would be detrimental to society for those acts to be socially acceptable. See my previous response to your post on divorce.

[Macaddicttt]

It depends how you define religious divorce, i would define religious divorce as turning away from God and leaving the church, however certain radical ultra religionists would tell you that getting divorced from another person is religious divorce.

Semantics. You know what he meant.

[kastenbrust]

Semantics. You know what he meant.

of course i knew, but he was talking bs, so i tried to provide an alternative perspective. I love how most people who would label themselves as religious have no idea of ontology

[iJohnHenry]

of course i knew, but he was talking bs, so i tried to provide an alternative perspective. I love how most people who would label themselves as religious have no idea of ontology

Religious?? http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/terical.gif

I am a big enough person to acquiesce to the beliefs of others.

To use the Catholic church as an example, I think that allowing an annulment after consummation is little more than an indulgence, from the old days.

[Macaddicttt]

of course i knew, but he was talking bs, so i tried to provide an alternative perspective. I love how most people who would label themselves as religious have no idea of ontology

So using the phrase "religious divorce" incorrectly one time automatically means that someone has "no idea of ontology"? Give me a break.

[chrmjenkins]

Making it your business whether some specific other person accepts your general judgment is not a loophole to the principle.

You're obfuscating the issue by insisting we are demanding that he take up our definition of sin. Nowhere did we demand that he accept our definition, and I clearly stated it was in a religious context. He is free to have his own context and definition for the word. I simply, by the definition of sin in my faith, assert that all men sin because it is man's nature to sin. I was simply operating under the assumption that he did not clearly understand the Christian definition of sin, which is why we endeavored to educate him about how Christians view sin, not how everyone should view sin. Besides, a judgment is usually rendered for a willful act. If I criticize him for immoral thoughts, I am judging him, but if I merely assert it is in all man's nature to sin, without making a specific accusation, no judgment is being rendered. It's more aptly described as a sociological assumption.

[Macaddicttt]

To use the Catholic church as an example, I think that allowing an annulment after consummation is little more than an indulgence, from the old days.

Actually, indulgences still exist, they merely cannot be sold anymore, assuming that you meant the word "indulgence" in the Catholic sense of the word. Although the way you used it here makes it look like you didn't, seeing as a Catholic indulgence is in no way like an annulment.

[iJohnHenry]

Actually, indulgences still exist, they merely cannot be sold anymore, assuming that you meant the word "indulgence" in the Catholic sense of the word. Although the way you used it here makes it look like you didn't, seeing as a Catholic indulgence is in no way like an annulment.

I did mean it in the Catholic sense, in that the wealthy could curry favour with "God" (i.e. the Catholic Church, and the men that run it), to expunge some past indiscretion.

"Little more" should have been the tip-off.

[kastenbrust]

So using the phrase "religious divorce" incorrectly one time automatically means that someone has "no idea of ontology"? Give me a break.

The Catholic church pins most of its ethics and teachings on the meaning of words, which is why its in such a ridiculous state, preaching against the use of condoms etc, so actually the interpretation of words it is important, its a very basic philosophic principal.

[Macaddicttt]

The Catholic church pins most of its ethics and teachings on the meaning of words, which is why its in such a ridiculous state, preaching against the use of condoms etc, so actually the interpretation of words it is important, its a very basic philosophic principal.

Grow up and stop using semantics as an excuse. This is a good-nature discussion on a Macintosh forum. We're not writing theology papers. Why bother bringing in semantics when you know it won't advance the discussion. Oh yeah, you don't want to actually debate, you'd rather just throw a wrench in it. :rolleyes:

[Iscariot]

I am the ultimate argument against Christianity!

Long have I toiled under your vile planet in the dead city of R'lyeh, dreaming only of the day when I consume your sun and sing the song that ends your world. Your stars are almost ripe again — a dark universe conspires against you and I am it's architect. Your Christ was nailed to a cross, and I am the hammer of the dead, I am the dark instrument of bone. Suffer! Revel in the torture of your fellow man, take ecstasy in the blood in the streets. It will be all you have left. In the ash of your humanity I will plant the seeds of my star-spawn, and we will devour all.

[JLatte]

I am the ultimate argument against Christianity!

Long have I toiled under your vile planet in the dead city of R'lyeh, dreaming only of the day when I consume your sun and sing the song that ends your world. Your stars are almost ripe again — a dark universe conspires against you and I am it's architect. Your Christ was nailed to a cross, and I am the hammer of the dead, I am the dark instrument of bone. Suffer! Revel in the torture of your fellow man, take ecstasy in the blood in the streets. It will be all you have left. In the ash of your humanity I will plant the seeds of my star-spawn, and we will devour all.

haha I like the immediate stop of replies after your post. Think you scared everyone off :eek:

[iJohnHenry]

haha I like the immediate stop of replies after your post. Think you scared everyone off :eek:

Hardly, it's just that some posts have been culled. :D

[Tomorrow]

in the next 50 years this small minded attitude will be a thing of the past....You're becoming a minority.

Not (http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm)

exactly (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/15/opinion/polls/main606453.shtml)

true (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107305/Ruling-SameSex-Marriage-Bucks-Majority-View.aspx).

[CalBoy]

Not (http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm)

exactly (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/15/opinion/polls/main606453.shtml)

true (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107305/Ruling-SameSex-Marriage-Bucks-Majority-View.aspx).

Each of those polls indicates growing support for same-sex marriage over time. Given the very unequal distribution of support for same-sex marriage among the young (in California voters between 18 and 35 rejected Prop 8 by more than 2/3rds compared to the flipped ratio for those over 65), it is very easy to foresee same-sex marriage become a non-issue within the next 10 or 15 years. Isn't the entire point Kardashian was making?

[Tomorrow]

Each of those polls indicates growing support for same-sex marriage over time. Given the very unequal distribution of support for same-sex marriage among the young (in California voters between 18 and 35 rejected Prop 8 by more than 2/3rds compared to the flipped ratio for those over 65), it is very easy to foresee same-sex marriage become a non-issue within the next 10 or 15 years. Isn't the entire point Kardashian was making?

You're assuming (1) the prevailing mindset in California applies to the rest of the country; it doesn't - (2) voters 18-35 will feel the same way about things when they become older (some will, others won't) - and (3) upcoming generations will feel the same way, and who knows whether they will or won't?

And actually, I see the poll numbers fluctuating over time, not indicating growing support.

[CalBoy]

You're assuming (1) the prevailing mindset in California applies to the rest of the country; it doesn't - (2) voters 18-35 will feel the same way about things when they become older (some will, others won't) - and (3) upcoming generations will feel the same way, and who knows whether they will or won't?

On an issue like this, most political scientists worth their degrees know that all three apply to gay rights. Nearly four years ago Time had a cover story on points 2 and 3 that you've just raised. What's changed with gay rights compared with previous generations is acceptance at earlier and earlier ages among peers. Acceptance has also changed from "do what you do in private and I won't ask any questions," to "when can I meet your significant other?"

Point 1 is largely irrelevant as California is but a laboratory state; what happens in California will eventually happen to the rest of the nation, and same-sex marriage is no different. All states will get to the same place, the only real question is when.

And actually, I see the poll numbers fluctuating over time, not indicating growing support.

Well then you aren't paying close enough attention. I'm too lazy at the moment to link the Pew research on this, but suffice it to say that every year since late 2003 (when Massachusetts became the first state), support for same-sex marriage has increased. It's now hovering around the 45% mark nation-wide, whereas just 5 years ago it was only around 38%.

[brad.c]

What's at the end of the universe?

The bezel.

[Tomorrow]

Point 1 is largely irrelevant as California is but a laboratory state; what happens in California will eventually happen to the rest of the nation

Sweet Jeebus, I'm glad you're wrong on this one. Rolling blackouts; running out of money in the state coffers; electing a governor only to vote to remove him and choose his replacement from Schwarzenegger, Mary Carey, Gary Coleman, or Gallagher; using taxpayer money to pay for illegal immigrants to go to college - whoa, you had me scared for a minute. No, I don't think the rest of the country is crazy enough to follow in California's footsteps on many issues.

Well then you aren't paying close enough attention. I'm too lazy at the moment to link the Pew research on this, but suffice it to say that every year since late 2003 (when Massachusetts became the first state), support for same-sex marriage has increased. It's now hovering around the 45% mark nation-wide, whereas just 5 years ago it was only around 38%.

I'm not too lazy to post some numbers - the graphic below is from CBS News.

Looks to me that since 2004, support for gay marriage went up, then down, then up again. In the same time period, support for no legal recognition of same-sex relationships went down, then up, then down, then up again. That's hardly a trend.

[CalBoy]

Sweet Jeebus, I'm glad you're wrong on this one. Rolling blackouts;

Caused primarily by a corrupted energy company that eventually went belly-up, wiping out thousands of shareholders along with it. To blame that on the state or its political leanings is absurd.

You'll note, however, that since then many of California's ideas have been recycled in the new era of "green" living. Energy efficient lightbulbs, for example, were a necessity in California long before they were considered "green" anywhere else in the nation.


running out of money in the state coffers;

California is not the only state that has run out of money; most states are currently in the red. Moreover, California's budget problems are caused more by an easy initiative process rather than genuine political will. Propositions promising tax cuts attract their constituents while those promising spending attract theirs; if there is any lesson to be learned here, it is that no state or any other political entity should employ propositions that are so easy to pass.


electing a governor only to vote to remove him and choose his replacement from Schwarzenegger, Mary Carey, Gary Coleman, or Gallagher;

I'd hardly call that a political trend, especially given how rare it is even for a state like California.

using taxpayer money to pay for illegal immigrants to go to college - whoa, you had me scared for a minute.

At the moment, illegal immigrants must pay out-of-state tuition for their college education, which means that they receive no direct subsidy from the people of California.


No, I don't think the rest of the country is crazy enough to follow in California's footsteps on many issues.

Most of what you posted wasn't issue-related at all, it was political phenomenon not caused by the state or its people.

If you really want to know where California leads the nation, look to the way we regulate harmful substances far before any other state does. Look at the way we tackle tough issues before the rest of the nation has even bothered to consider their gravity.

More to the point, a laboratory state doesn't always produce change in the nation; it can in fact strengthen the status quo. What makes California so special is that it is in essence a miniature version of the entire nation, with large dense urban areas complemented with suburban sprawl, with heavy industry offset by vast farmland, with a thriving tech sector supported by equally vibrant arts and entertainment. California is the only state that can be considered a nation unto herself, due to both its size and demographic diversity. That is the value of a laboratory state, and that is why California is considered a leader on many issues, because it can predict how well a certain idea will work.

Same-sex marriage in California never really had the chance to get off the ground, and as such, California's laboratory status hasn't been invoked yet. Once Prop 8 is overturned, and the world doesn't end, it will lend an incredible degree of legitimacy to same-sex marriage (even more so since the religious right chose to make California such a huge battleground).


I'm not too lazy to post some numbers - the graphic below is from CBS News.

Looks to me that since 2004, support for gay marriage went up, then down, then up again. In the same time period, support for no legal recognition of same-sex relationships went down, then up, then down, then up again. That's hardly a trend.

You already posted this earlier. CBS is but one media company, and even if we leave that aside, there is a clear positive trend in the numbers leading up to 2009. The brief dips and gains at the bottom of the chart are not what's important; the crucial thing is how durable the gains have been over time.

Between 2006 and 2007, the three polls taken show a steady rate of 27-28% (this is within the margin of error so we can assume for all intents and purposes that the numbers were stagnant). Then, in 2008, support increased to 30%. In 2009, support increased again to 33%.

What's even more interesting is that opposition has remained stagnant (it changed from 35% to 36% to 35%-statistically, that's no change) while the number supporting civil unions has been declining (starting out at 32% in 2007 and dropping to 27% in 2009), which shows that those who once supported civil unions are beginning to support same-sex marriage.

However, as I mentioned, this is one set of polls which can't always capture the issue's movement as well as we'd like. The only reliable way to measure an issue as contentious as this is to aggregate several polling sources into a longitudinal survey and then examine how the issue has moved.

I can tell you right now that same-sex marriage has moved considerably forward since Goodridge v Department of Public Health and is going to be moving much faster over the next 10 years.

[Jack Flash]

I don't know a single Christian who made the choice between Atheism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or any of the other beliefs. It was either an emotional decision based on peer pressure, or they were told what to believe before their minds were mature enough to know the difference.
Riddle me this; is there any difference when you switch the bolded terms around? What you're suggesting is that we're products of our environment. To me that's not a compelling argument against Christianity, it's a vulnerability in the defense of any belief whether it be theistic or atheistic.

[djellison]

it's a vulnerability in the defense of any belief whether it be theistic or atheistic.

Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is default - it's 'none'. We are all born 'atheists'. Many people are then told about one religion as they grow up and without the motivation, opportunity or will to question it, end up being a part of that religion. Some claim to have some literary/emotive derived revelation at some point.

What's strange about such experiences, is that they have extreme geographic correlation. If any of the God's that many on this planet choose to believe in were actually all knowing and all seeing - then there would be no geographic correlation whatsoever. That specific religions tie to specific regions is, imho, indicative of religion itself being a man made thing - like political geography.

[Jack Flash]

Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is default - it's 'none'. We are all born 'atheists'. Many people are then told about one religion as they grow up and without the motivation, opportunity or will to question it, end up being a part of that religion. Some claim to have some literary/emotive derived revelation at some point.

What's strange about such experiences, is that they have extreme geographic correlation. If any of the God's that many on this planet choose to believe in were actually all knowing and all seeing - then there would be no geographic correlation whatsoever. That specific religions tie to specific regions is, imho, indicative of religion itself being a man made thing - like political geography.

Atheism is absolutely a belief that theism is incorrect; it's a belief that there are no deities. Atheism can be entirely religious, for example, Buddhists are certainly not theists.

I find the belief that all are born atheist a bit incredulous. If you know nothing of a god how can you be automatically predisposed to reject it? Now I'm not arguing that there needs be a true religion or that atheism is wrong, but I think you're mistaken in the assumption that atheism is a natural state.

At best you could argue we are all born into humanism or naturalism.

[djellison]

it's a belief that there are no deities..

Wrong. It's NO belief that there ARE deities.

You can not have a belief of the absence of something when there is no real evidence for it to exist. A lack of belief in it is the default.

Sorry to burst your bubble that by not believing in a God I am committing an act of faith - but believe me - I am not.

People know nothing of a God when born. If they do - then isn't it remarkable that the people born in the USA and Europe are all born Christian, yet the ones in India are not.

[Jack Flash]

Wrong. It's NO belief that there ARE deities.

You can not have a belief of the absence of something when there is no real evidence for it to exist. A lack of belief in it is the default.

Sorry to burst your bubble that by not believing in a God I am committing an act of faith - but believe me - I am not.

People know nothing of a God when born. If they do - then isn't it remarkable that the people born in the USA and Europe are all born Christian, yet the ones in India are not.

a⋅the⋅ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA –noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Sorry to burst your bubble but atheism is a belief that there are no deities.

I don't care what religion you rail against and I have no agenda to convince you of a 'good' god but humans aren't born atheists.

[barkmonster]

a⋅the⋅ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA –noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Sorry to burst your bubble but atheism is a belief that there are no deities.

I don't care what religion you rail against and I have no agenda to convince you of a 'good' god but humans aren't born atheists.

Why do people who've lost an argument always turn to grammatical or linguistic nit picking to distract from the fact?

You're right of course, A more appropriate term would be to say people are born "Faithless" and brainwashed into having a faith from an early age by their family. A new born child is a blank slate and has no automatic belief system hard-wired in the womb.

[Jack Flash]

Why do people who've lost an argument always turn to grammatical or linguistic nit picking to distract from the fact?

You're right of course, A more appropriate term would be to say people are born "Faithless" and brainwashed into having a faith from an early age by their family. A new born child is a blank slate and has no automatic belief system hard-wired in the womb.

Yes. A newborn is neither christian nor jew nor atheist, all of which are beliefs. So, explain where I lost the argument I was making please.

"Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is default - it's 'none'. We are all born 'atheists'." - other poster

Atheism is the belief that there exist no deities. Chrisitanity is the belief that there is one god.

So what's the fact I'm distracting from? You don't like that you have a supreme belief? You may be uncomfortable with it but you're different than a newborn. You've adopted a set of realities and beliefs that the new child has not.

We are not born atheists.

[djellison]

You don't like that you have a supreme belief?

Sorry - I don't - because it's not true I will ask you , once, politely, to retract the statement where you claim to know MY beliefs. You do not.

It's not an act of faith to NOT believe in something.

The belief, the faith, the leap - is made by those who are religious.

I am not. I make no such leap, I have no such faith, I have no belief for or against any God.

Please do not tar me with your faith stained brush.

Do you 'believe' that Santa doesn't exist? Or fairies, or nymphs, or the monster under the bed, or ghosts or spirits etc etc.

No.

'I don't believe in Ghosts'
is NOT ' I believe there are no Ghosts'

I don't believe in God
is NOT 'I believe there is no God'

Do not label me with whatever twisted title you 'believe' appropriate.

People are born with NO RELIGIOUS FAITH.

I have NO RELIGIOUS FAITH.

And it's amazing.

[Jack Flash]

Sorry - I don't. It's not an act of faith to NOT believe in something.

But you absolutely do have faith in your atheism. I know you don't like to connotation but it is so. All of our decisions are based on a certain amount of faith in the outcome.

Your decision to believe in atheism requires faith on your part that you've decided correctly.

You're really no better than a religious individual who has examined their faith. I would argue against infant baptism for this reason.

[Iscariot]

A new born child is a blank slate and has no automatic belief system hard-wired in the womb.

Not entirely true.

To the uninitiated human worm, a confrontation with the Judeo-Christian "God" may elicit a number of responses, from fear to reverence to joy to anger. However, a confrontation with a Great Old One will have only one result; an overwhelming sense of pant-shatting fear. That is how you know I am the Way and the Light — by the sheer volume of crap in your drawers when you lay eyes upon the Dread Father!

Suffer!

[djellison]

Your decision to believe in atheism requires faith on your part that you've decided correctly.

You are just so wrong. So very very very wrong. No decision has been made. No faith is exercised. No belief is occurring.

[Jack Flash]

Sorry - I don't - because it's not true I will ask you , once, politely, to retract the statement where you claim to know MY beliefs. You do not.

It's not an act of faith to NOT believe in something.

The belief, the faith, the leap - is made by those who are religious.

I am not. I make no such leap, I have no such faith, I have no belief for or against any God.

Please do not tar me with your faith stained brush.

Do you 'believe' that Santa doesn't exist? Or fairies, or nymphs, or the monster under the bed, or ghosts or spirits etc etc.

No.

'I don't believe in Ghosts'
is NOT ' I believe there are no Ghosts'

I don't believe in God
is NOT 'I believe there is no God'

Do not label me with whatever twisted title you 'believe' appropriate.

People are born with NO RELIGIOUS FAITH.

I have NO RELIGIOUS FAITH.

And it's amazing.

I can tell you're upset by my reasoning.

Again, everything we do is a mixture of statistics and faith.

These statements of yours are nonsensical:

"'I don't believe in Ghosts'
is NOT ' I believe there are no Ghosts'

I don't believe in God
is NOT 'I believe there is no God'"

It's as if me saying 2+2=4 is not the same as 4=2+2

You're entitled to have atheistic beliefs but you cannot convince me that they aren't just that; beliefs.

[Jack Flash]

You are just so wrong. So very very very wrong. No decision has been made. No faith is exercised. No belief is occurring.

No, I am correct. You who knows of religions, who knows of atheism, who knows of science cannot claim to not know these things.

A baby doesn't believe that there are no deities. A baby is not atheist.

You are not a baby. You have chosen to believe in atheism.

[djellison]

You're entitled to have atheistic beliefs

Wow - thank you for giving me permission to have 'beliefs'

But I wont be taking you up on the offer.

Please move on from attempting to tar me with your religious brush. You are now on my ignore list.

[Jack Flash]

Wow - thank you for giving me permission to have 'beliefs'

But I wont be taking you up on the offer.

Please move on from attempting to tar me with your religious brush. You are now on my ignore list.

That's fine, but I've never attempted to impose a religion on you.

You've made the decision to believe that atheism is truth; a leap of faith just as a christian makes he decision and leap of faith to believe in their god. I have no problem with that you believe. Your attitude leaves something to be desired...

[SLC Flyfishing]

Is it just me, or has djellison become more and more unstable lately?

Getting all pissed off and losing it when people think he/she "believes" in atheism.

Tell me this buddy, do you "think" atheism isn't the correct way of "thinking"

I think you'd better stop calling yourself an atheist, since it's definition is one who holds the theory or belief that god(s) does not exist. If you reject all faith in anything (and yes you have faith that there is no higher power if you're an atheist) then you better start referring to yourself as a nihilist.

SLC

[.Andy]

Is it just me, or has djellison become more and more unstable lately?

Getting all pissed off and losing it when people think he/she "believes" in atheism.

Tell me this buddy
This is unnecessary.

do you "think" atheism isn't the correct way of "thinking"
It's a categorically better way to "think" than religion.

edit: But it all rather depends on how one defines "better".

[Kardashian]

You're assuming (1) the prevailing mindset in California applies to the rest of the country; it doesn't - (2) voters 18-35 will feel the same way about things when they become older (some will, others won't) - and (3) upcoming generations will feel the same way, and who knows whether they will or won't?

And actually, I see the poll numbers fluctuating over time, not indicating growing support.

What I'm assuming is America will follow suit like the rest of the world.

With more and more countries being pro-equal rights, will America, one of the of most important countries in the world, want to be associated with beliefs that not even some third world or middle eastern countries still have in place?

My guess is no.

The mindset and beliefs some of you have laid out in this thread are shrinking - rapidly.

If you look at how you treated gay people 30 years ago to today, its a big change.

Even in countries like SA, how they've developed in 15 years is incredible.

I should imagine America's not going to want to treat gay people in the same way it treated black people. You and your beliefs are holding your country back.

It won't even take 50 years.

There's already a bill being put forward to allow same-sex partner immigration to obtain a green card, the Uniting American Families Act.

You can walk outside and fire your guns, but you're against a man hugging another man. Very sad.

[imac/cheese]

How can you support something which had that written anyway. Its absurd. Your Churches let any old woman walk in and marry now - so why not Gay people as well?

So, if a child was to be stoned to death, its fine, its in the name of your bible so its all well and good? They had it coming kinda thing?

Because you've relaxed your 'rules' on virgins and children - maybe you should relax them on homosexuality as well.

Not that it bothers me, I'm Jewish - my religion lets me walk into my synagogue tomorrow and marry my partner in the support of my friends, family and G-d.

I think Christianity is one of the most dangerous things in the world - the way its still played out today.

All the things you are complaining about are found in the Old Testament otherwise known as the Hebrew Bible otherwise known as the Tanakh. Actually, they are all found in the first five books of the old testament, the Torah, which is the most holy scripture in Judaism.

I am confused about how you can paint a broad picture of Christianity being so dangerous, but not see that the "dangerous" aspects of Christianity are also found in Judaism.

[djellison]

you have faith that there is no higher power if you're an atheist



Then I'm not an atheist. That's the label that people in this place are attempting to pin upon me. Note the 'What Faith/Religion are you' thread, where I ask where the 'none' box is.

I have no 'faith' there is no higher power. It's not something I 'believe' - any more than you have faith there is no Tooth Fairy.

I'm sick and tired of being labeled as just being of a different religion because I reject all religion. I'm sick of people like Jack Flash refusing to actually read what I say, and claiming they know how/why/what I think, claiming I am committing an act of faith to NOT believe in something for which there is no evidence.

Do you have faith in the non existence of a 28 ft tall bright green baboon called Boris, playing poker with Elvis on the port wing of a UFO with the Loch Ness Monster outside your front window?

If people want to 'believe' and have 'faith' in a 'God' for which there is no evidence, no proof, no actual tangible existence of.....that's their thing. I think it a tragedy that so many people condemn themselves to a dictionary definition of delusional disorder and detach themselves so much from reality.

But do NOT tell me it's 'belief' or 'faith' to NOT believe in such a thing.

IT IS NOT.

[arkitect]

Not that it bothers me, I'm Jewish - my religion lets me walk into my synagogue tomorrow and marry my partner in the support of my friends, family and G-d.

Really?
I have no idea how Judaism works… except to say from what I have seen homosexuality is condemned as "an abomination".

When did this change?

[Kardashian]

I am confused about how you can paint a broad picture of Christianity being so dangerous, but not see that the "dangerous" aspects of Christianity are also found in Judaism.

Because Christians still follow these beliefs.

Jews do not. (except for the extremely Orthodox, of which there are far less numbers compared to Modern Orthodox, Reformed or Liberal Jews)

[Jack Flash]

Then I'm not an atheist. That's the label that people in this place are attempting to pin upon me. Note the 'What Faith/Religion are you' thread, where I ask where the 'none' box is.

I have no 'faith' there is no higher power. It's not something I 'believe' - any more than you have faith there is no Tooth Fairy.

I'm sick and tired of being labeled as just being of a different religion because I reject all religion. I'm sick of people like Jack Flash refusing to actually read what I say, and claiming they know how/why/what I think, claiming I am committing an act of faith to NOT believe in something for which there is no evidence.

Do you have faith in the non existence of a 28 ft tall bright green baboon called Boris, playing poker with Elvis on the port wing of a UFO with the Loch Ness Monster outside your front window?

If people want to 'believe' and have 'faith' in a 'God' for which there is no evidence, no proof, no actual tangible existence of.....that's their thing. I think it a tragedy that so many people condemn themselves to a dictionary definition of delusional disorder and detach themselves so much from reality.

But do NOT tell me it's 'belief' or 'faith' to NOT believe in such a thing.

IT IS NOT.

All I have to say is... you need someone to talk to or something?

[chrmjenkins]

I don't know a single Christian who made the choice between Atheism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or any of the other beliefs. It was either an emotional decision based on peer pressure, or they were told what to believe before their minds were mature enough to know the difference.

I missed this earlier, but caught on to it after someone quoted.

I made the choice of Christianity between Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and to a lesser extent, Judaism and Islam.

I was 21 at the time, and had already gone through my own periods of agnosticism and atheism. I had studied and wrote a 20 page essay on the religion and culture of India (Hinduism), and I had conducted personal study into the teachings of Buddhism and its central beliefs (and I had trouble with the concept of reincarnation). I knew, in essence, what Judaism and Islam claimed. Knowing all of this, I still made an informed investigation and was called to faith in Christ.

djellison, I would be inclined to agree with your reasoning if it wasn't an active non-belief on your part. If you didn't believe for sake of never having treated the question, that's one thing, but you've actively entertained it and considered the sides, making it an active decision. There are only two sides to the coin, either you believe, or you don't believe. You can't have absence of opinion or belief in the matter when you've considered the question.

[djellison]

There are only two sides to the coin, either you believe, or you don't believe

I don't believe.

I don't believe in 'God' or 'Allah' or any other deity.

What angers me is people like Jack Flash who take that non belief and try and label it as a belief.

No one has answered the simple question

If it is an act of faith to NOT believe in a God (which is what I am being accused of) - then is it an act of faith to NOT believe in Santa / The tooth Fairy / insert any fictional character here. Thus, is is not an act of faith to NOT believe in the billions of things that have ever been described but are not real.....ones mind would explode managing that much faith in the non existence of things.

For those claiming I'm about to have a nervous breakdown. I'm not. I LOVE heated debate, People like imac/cheese fascinate me. I'm loving this debate, but I abhor people who try and tell me what I'm thinking and why I'm thinking it.

[yg17]

Really?
I have no idea how Judaism works… except to say from what I have seen homosexuality is condemned as "an abomination".

When did this change?

Depends on which sect of Judaism, whether it's reform, conservative, orthodox, etc. My parents attend a reform synogague and the rabbis there publicly support gay marriage and will perform them, even the rabbi at my grandparents' more conservative synogague has written an op/ed in a local Jewish newspaper in support of gay marriage (although I don't know if he'll officiate one or not)

[Jack Flash]

I don't believe.

I don't believe in 'God' or 'Allah' or any other deity.

What angers me is people like Jack Flash who take that non belief and try and label it as a belief.

No one has answered the simple question

If it is an act of faith to NOT believe in a God (which is what I am being accused of) - then is it an act of faith to NOT believe in Santa / The tooth Fairy / insert any fictional character here.

For those claiming I'm about to have a nervous breakdown. I'm not. I LOVE heated debate, People like imac/cheese fascinate me. I'm loving this debate, but I abhor people who try and tell me what I'm thinking and why I'm thinking it.

I don't believe in 'God' or 'Allah' or any other deity.

I believe 'God' or 'Allah' or any other deity doesn't exist.

Same thing.

[arkitect]

Depends on which sect of Judaism, whether it's reform, conservative, orthodox, etc. My parents attend a reform synogague and the rabbis there publicly support gay marriage and will perform them, even the rabbi at my grandparents' more conservative synogague has written an op/ed in a local Jewish newspaper in support of gay marriage (although I don't know if he'll officiate one or not)

Thanks for the explanation.
:)

[chrmjenkins]

I don't believe.

I don't believe in 'God' or 'Allah' or any other deity.

What angers me is people like Jack Flash who take that non belief and try and label it as a belief.

No one has answered the simple question

If it is an act of faith to NOT believe in a God (which is what I am being accused of) - then is it an act of faith to NOT believe in Santa / The tooth Fairy / insert any fictional character here. Thus, is is not an act of faith to NOT believe in the billions of things that have ever been described but are not real.....ones mind would explode managing that much faith in the non existence of things.

For those claiming I'm about to have a nervous breakdown. I'm not. I LOVE heated debate, People like imac/cheese fascinate me. I'm loving this debate, but I abhor people who try and tell me what I'm thinking and why I'm thinking it.

You're correct, is it an act of faith to NOT believe in Santa etc. fictional characters. We find this absurd because we have context for the character's creation. However, in the purest form of treating the existence of beings, we can't be 100% sure that any concept our mind comes up with doesn't exist. It's just not a conducive framework to conduct thought in, as our generally accepted theories, rules and laws seem to work for us 99.9999% of the time.

A similar explosion to the things we would assume are non-existent is the body of knowledge which we have yet to acquire. It's incredibly vast, but we can't grasp it because we don't, by definition, know the minutiae of what we're missing.

To give it context, we could take hypothetical ancient Mayan texts that speak of a deity for them. For all we know, they knew it was fictional, but without that context, we may consider that they actually believed in that deity, meaning people are less likely to dismiss it out of hand because people genuinely had that belief.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I don't believe.

I don't believe in 'God' or 'Allah' or any other deity.

What angers me is people like Jack Flash who take that non belief and try and label it as a belief.

No one has answered the simple question

If it is an act of faith to NOT believe in a God (which is what I am being accused of) - then is it an act of faith to NOT believe in Santa / The tooth Fairy / insert any fictional character here. Thus, is is not an act of faith to NOT believe in the billions of things that have ever been described but are not real.....ones mind would explode managing that much faith in the non existence of things.


Well as a child I stayed up all night and tried to get a glimpse of Santa Clause, but instead caught a glimpse of my parents putting out toys and trying to tell me in the morning that it was Santa who did it. Now that I have children, Santa Clause hasn't come to give them gifts either, it was all me. That observation which I'm sure every single one of us has made, combined with the fact that we've made explorations into every part of the dry land on earth, and have satellites which have photographed the whole of the earths surface and still have made no actual discovery of Santa or his base of operations means that to most, it can be taken as indisputable fact that there is no Santa Clause. But for all I know, Santa doesn't come to my house because I put my own toys out for my children, so maybe it is an issue of faith.

Until humanity has searched every inch of existence both in this earth and the rest of the universe as it exists and found no god, I think the possibility has to remain open, especially since the idea of deity worship of one kind or another is not exactly new and has been observed to have occured since the dawn of humanity. That's why you can't be absolutely certain that there is no god, i.e. you take that information on faith that your own personal observations are correct, all the while being ultimately unable to prove with any sort of absolute certainty that they are indeed correct.

So the idea that you have faith in atheism merely means that you've evaluated the possibility of either there being no god(s) or that god(s) exist, and decided that you believe that no god(s) exist.

I really think you might be more comfortable referring to yourself as a nihilist; nihilists reject all religious and moral principles and hold the idea that life is utterly meaningless.

SLC

[Gelfin]

No, I am correct. You who knows of religions, who knows of atheism, who knows of science cannot claim to not know these things.

A baby doesn't believe that there are no deities. A baby is not atheist.

You are not a baby. You have chosen to believe in atheism.

Once again we encounter the abusive equivocation.

"Belief" comes in two major forms, justified and faith-based.

Justified belief is the sort that says, "I left my car with a full tank of gas last night, so I believe it will be full this morning." This is reasoned and reasonable, but it readily admits of the possibility of error. Someone may have siphoned my tank, or I may have a small unnoticed leak. Despite this essential uncertainty the agnostic position, "I don't know if my tank will be full this morning or not," serves no one well. We confidently believe what we have reason to believe until we encounter new facts that convince us we were mistaken.

Faith-based belief is the sort that says, "I know there is a god because I have faith there is a god, because I have a book of stories about a god, and because I get a particular fuzzy feeling when I think about that god." None of these things actually provides any evidence for there actually being a god, but the believer has accepted belief in the absence of evidence to be morally superior to justified beliefs. Moreover, such belief admits no possibility of error. If believing in a god without evidence is considered morally good, then losing belief for any reason, justified or otherwise, must necessarily be considered morally evil.

Atheists simply apply the former definition to the concept of a god, just like we all do for almost every other part of our lives. There is no reason for an atheist to believe there is any such thing, so he does not. The religious, admittedly more often through ignorance than malice, frequently conflate the two definitions to arrive at the abusive claim, "you have a belief just like I do, so we are on equally unsteady epistemic ground." This is a false equivocation. The atheist has a belief, but not a belief in the religious sense. He does not have faith. Generally an atheist is at least in potentia open to verifiable evidence that he has erred, however in practice the claims religious people make are so wildly improbable that an atheist is justified in believing no such evidence will be forthcoming.

[djellison]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Not believing in a deity is not believing there to be no deity.

Clearly I lack the lexicon to get this point across - I've hunted for the help of others...
http://www.indiauncut.com/iublog/article/atheism-as-the-absence-of-belief/
"Atheism is not a belief that there is no God—it is the absence of belief in God. I am an atheist not because I am 100% sure that there is no God—how does one prove the negative anyway?—but because I see as little evidence around me for God as for flying fairies or invisible pink unicorns"

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism.htm
Atheism is the absence of theism; by itself, it isn't even a belief, much less a belief system, and as such cannot be any of those things

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
"But surely belief in atheism (or science) is still just an act of faith, like religion is?.....
Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof. Skeptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as skeptical atheism has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.

[chrmjenkins]

Once again we encounter the abusive equivocation.

"Belief" comes in two major forms, justified and faith-based.

Justified belief is the sort that says, "I left my car with a full tank of gas last night, so I believe it will be full this morning." This is reasoned and reasonable, but it readily admits of the possibility of error. Someone may have siphoned my tank, or I may have a small unnoticed leak. Despite this essential uncertainty the agnostic position, "I don't know if my tank will be full this morning or not," serves no one well. We confidently believe what we have reason to believe until we encounter new facts that convince us we were mistaken.

Faith-based belief is the sort that says, "I know there is a god because I have faith there is a god, because I have a book of stories about a god, and because I get a particular fuzzy feeling when I think about that god." None of these things actually provides any evidence for there actually being a god, but the believer has accepted belief in the absence of evidence to be morally superior to justified beliefs. Moreover, such belief admits no possibility of error. If believing in a god without evidence is considered morally good, then losing belief for any reason, justified or otherwise, must necessarily be considered morally evil. Non sequitur. How can the constraints of a faith-based system apply to a reasoned one, unless you're just trying to make a quip that Christians necessarily excuse themselves from all reason and logic?

Atheists simply apply the former definition to the concept of a god, just like we all do for almost every other part of our lives. There is no reason for an atheist to believe there is any such thing, so he does not. The religious, admittedly more often through ignorance than malice, frequently conflate the two definitions to arrive at the abusive claim, "you have a belief just like I do, so we are on equally unsteady epistemic ground." This is a false equivocation. The atheist has a belief, but not a belief in the religious sense. He does not have faith. Generally an atheist is at least in potentia open to verifiable evidence that he has erred, however in practice the claims religious people make are so wildly improbable that an atheist is justified in believing no such evidence will be forthcoming.

Your distinction is valid, but the key point is that djellison asserted that the non-belief wasn't even a belief, where you clearly use the positive belief in both cases without reservation. That's what I thought we were challenging.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Not believing in a deity is not believing there to be no deity.

Clearly I lack the lexicon to get this point across - I've hunted for the help of others...
http://www.indiauncut.com/iublog/article/atheism-as-the-absence-of-belief/


http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism.htm


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

From what you quoted, you're just re-branding agnosticism. It's just the level to which you acknowledge that a god may exist that is the question. Your belief still admits room for error, or the admits the impossibility of knowing, which is what an agnostic asserts.

[djellison]

nihilists reject all religious and moral principles and hold the idea that life is utterly meaningless.

Do I reject morals? No. Is life meaningless? No.

Please stop trying to pin a label to my head. The pins are beginning to Hurt.

[imac/cheese]

Because Christians still follow these beliefs.

Jews do not. (except for the extremely Orthodox, of which there are far less numbers compared to Modern Orthodox, Reformed or Liberal Jews)

You are painting Christians with a very broad brush. You really should not try to lump all Christians into one belief system. There are hundreds of different Christian denominations and thousands of independent churches that all have differing beliefs.

...People like imac/cheese fascinate me...

Thanks.

[djellison]

Your belief still admits room for error

Does your 'belief' that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist admit room for error just in case he does?

There are so many gods and godesses in all the faiths in all the world, that Christianity, the belief in the holy trinity, is, statistically, almost identical to atheism.

It is so bizarre that religious people question atheists about the lack of faith, yet do not question their own lack of faith in all the Gods they don't believe in.

[djellison]

Thanks.

Don't mention it. :D

[chrmjenkins]

Does your 'belief' that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist admit room for error just in case he does?

Yes, of course, I can't be 100% sure. I just have every logical reason to not believe it. Although I think she'd be offended by you confusing her gender.

[CalBoy]

I don't believe in 'God' or 'Allah' or any other deity.

I believe 'God' or 'Allah' or any other deity doesn't exist.

Same thing.

I have a far simpler question for you that I think will allow everyone to gauge the level of this debate far more honestly and accurately if you wouldn't mind answering it. :)

Question: What is the opposite of hot?

And yes, I'm quite serious with this question so if you answer it without any sarcasm, I can proceed to make my point(s).

[Jack Flash]

Once again we encounter the abusive equivocation.

"Belief" comes in two major forms, justified and faith-based.

Justified belief is the sort that says, "I left my car with a full tank of gas last night, so I believe it will be full this morning." This is reasoned and reasonable, but it readily admits of the possibility of error. Someone may have siphoned my tank, or I may have a small unnoticed leak. Despite this essential uncertainty the agnostic position, "I don't know if my tank will be full this morning or not," serves no one well. We confidently believe what we have reason to believe until we encounter new facts that convince us we were mistaken.

Faith-based belief is the sort that says, "I know there is a god because I have faith there is a god, because I have a book of stories about a god, and because I get a particular fuzzy feeling when I think about that god." None of these things actually provides any evidence for there actually being a god, but the believer has accepted belief in the absence of evidence to be morally superior to justified beliefs. Moreover, such belief admits no possibility of error. If believing in a god without evidence is considered morally good, then losing belief for any reason, justified or otherwise, must necessarily be considered morally evil.

Atheists simply apply the former definition to the concept of a god, just like we all do for almost every other part of our lives. There is no reason for an atheist to believe there is any such thing, so he does not. The religious, admittedly more often through ignorance than malice, frequently conflate the two definitions to arrive at the abusive claim, "you have a belief just like I do, so we are on equally unsteady epistemic ground." This is a false equivocation. The atheist has a belief, but not a belief in the religious sense. He does not have faith. Generally an atheist is at least in potentia open to verifiable evidence that he has erred, however in practice the claims religious people make are so wildly improbable that an atheist is justified in believing no such evidence will be forthcoming.
A discussion I see parallel with this is that there is: are we alone in the universe? Now, interestingly the belief systems and associated religions (or non-religions if you will) are often switched.

[imac/cheese]

Question: What is the opposite of hot?


Ugly.

Does your 'belief' that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist admit room for error just in case he does?

Personally, I try to leave open a little room for anything to be possible.

[chrmjenkins]

I have a far simpler question for you that I think will allow everyone to gauge the level of this debate far more honestly and accurately if you wouldn't mind answering it. :)

Question: What is the opposite of hot?

And yes, I'm quite serious with this question so if you answer it without any sarcasm, I can proceed to make my point(s).

As defined by human terms, it is the relative absence of molecular motion so as to present a potential transfer of energy in the net positive for the object absorbing the energy. In absolutes, it is the absence of heat, or molecular motion (although a finite amount must exist), just as the opposite of light is the non-presence of photons.

[djellison]

There in lies the rub. I don't leave room for doubt regarding my absence of belief in a God. Such a thing is nonsensical, in my opinion. A 'God' is pure fiction. So I have no doubt that such a thing doesn't exist - in the same way I have no doubt that Frodo Baggins doesn't exist. I consider both to be a fictional creation of Man. My understand of the genesis (pun not intended) of Gods etc. seems, in my eyes to be coherant, explaining of all symptoms, far simpler than an actual 'god' whatever that mean. A world without God actually makes sense. One with it, does not. That's how I see things. 'belief' in a god is not an option - thus, no belief occurs to not have that belief.

Nice fairy by the way :) (see - it's a He :D )

[Kardashian]

Really?
I have no idea how Judaism works… except to say from what I have seen homosexuality is condemned as "an abomination".

When did this change?

The very old school Orthodox, who wear the [what I consider to be] silly clothes, driving their Volvo's and with the payot's aren't very pro-gay - but they are incredibly, incredibly strict. They're not anything like 'modern' Jews, whether they are Orthodox, Reform, Liberal or other.

Modern Orthodox Jews (most of my friends) and Liberal/Reform (what I am) are fine with gay people and performing ceremonies.

Its a very progressive religion in that respect.

[CalBoy]

As defined by human terms, it is the relative absence of molecular motion so as to present a potential transfer of energy in the net positive for the object absorbing the energy. In absolutes, it is the absence of heat, or molecular motion (although a finite amount must exist), just as the absence of light is the non-presence of photons.

I really was asking Jack Flash, but if you're curious enough to know the answer, I have no qualms about telling you that your response is incorrect. ;)

[Jack Flash]

I really was asking Jack Flash, but if you're curious enough to know the answer, I have no qualms about telling you that your response is incorrect. ;)

Let's hear it. My answer has already been posted.

[floyde]

There are hundreds of different Christian denominations and thousands of independent churches that all have differing beliefs.

Which is one of the main reasons why I don't believe in, or care (in case I believed) for the Christian deity.

Here we have a being which makes a huge deal out of people not following his arbitrary rules, and then it seems that he goes out of his way to transmit these rules in the most unintelligibly ambiguous fashion (primitive and editable written human language FTW!).

If we were talking about a human, I'm sure most people wouldn't disagree with me if I called such being an a-hole. But somehow it's ok for gods to be outside of their own standards of morality.

[chrmjenkins]

I really was asking Jack Flash, but if you're curious enough to know the answer, I have no qualms about telling you that your response is incorrect. ;)

You didn't qualify hot, which is why imac/cheese gave you a much more colloquial answer :D

Still, if you are taking it in the science context, are you saying the opposite of presence is not non-presence?

There in lies the rub. I don't leave room for doubt regarding my absence of belief in a God. Such a thing is nonsensical, in my opinion. A 'God' is pure fiction. So I have no doubt that such a thing doesn't exist - in the same way I have no doubt that Frodo Baggins doesn't exist. I consider both to be a fictional creation of Man. My understand of the genesis (pun not intended) of Gods etc. seems, in my eyes to be coherant, explaining of all symptoms, far simpler than an actual 'god' whatever that mean. A world without God actually makes sense. One with it, does not. That's how I see things. 'belief' in a god is not an option - thus, no belief occurs to not have that belief.

Nice fairy by the way :) (see - it's a He :D )

Then your definition doesn't apply, it necessarily leaves room for the doubt.

Which is one of the main reasons why I don't believe in, or care (in case I believed) for the Christian deity. So, you don't believe in Christianity because humans are indecisive?


Here we have a being which makes a huge deal out of people not following his arbitrary rules, If you buy into God being perfect, how can His rules be arbitrary? and then it seems that he goes out of his way to transmit these rules in the most unintelligibly ambiguous fashion (primitive and editable written human language FTW!). You have a better communication method available to us? He used the highest form of communication we had. There was no Stomp Out Loud performance which conveyed His principles to us.

[Jack Flash]

There in lies the rub. I don't leave room for doubt regarding my absence of belief in a God. Such a thing is nonsensical, in my opinion. A 'God' is pure fiction. So I have no doubt that such a thing doesn't exist - in the same way I have no doubt that Frodo Baggins doesn't exist. I consider both to be a fictional creation of Man. My understand of the genesis (pun not intended) of Gods etc. seems, in my eyes to be coherant, explaining of all symptoms, far simpler than an actual 'god' whatever that mean. A world without God actually makes sense. One with it, does not. That's how I see things. 'belief' in a god is not an option - thus, no belief occurs to not have that belief.

Nice fairy by the way :) (see - it's a He :D )
Do you believe in extraterrestrial life?

[CalBoy]

Let's hear it. My answer has already been posted.

The opposite of "hot" is "not hot."

It is an error of logic to assume that the opposite of "hot" is "cold," and I think this clearly denotes the*way you view belief and its opposite.

A rejection of your beliefs does not in and of itself make another belief; Gelfin has already laid out the other aspects of this logic nicely so I needn't bother to repeat it.

[Jack Flash]

The opposite of "hot" is "not hot."

It is an error of logic to assume that the opposite of "hot" is "cold," and I think this clearly denotes the*way you view belief and its opposite.

A rejection of your beliefs does not in and of itself make another belief; Gelfin has already laid out the other aspects of this logic nicely so I needn't bother to repeat it.

What's the opposite of left?

[jonbravo77]

The opposite of "hot" is "not hot."

It is an error of logic to assume that the opposite of "hot" is "cold," and I think this clearly denotes the*way you view belief and its opposite.

A rejection of your beliefs does not in and of itself make another belief; Gelfin has already laid out the other aspects of this logic nicely so I needn't bother to repeat it.

Sorry, but that was rather anti-climatic. I was following in anticipation of something earth shattering. ;)

[chrmjenkins]

The opposite of "hot" is "not hot."

It is an error of logic to assume that the opposite of "hot" is "cold," and I think this clearly denotes the*way you view belief and its opposite.

A rejection of your beliefs does not in and of itself make another belief; Gelfin has already laid out the other aspects of this logic nicely so I needn't bother to repeat it.

If it is not a belief, then what is it? A belief refers to an active, conscious decision of a human. He's clearly told us he did that to arrive at his answer. How are his views not a belief?

Since he actively entertained the question of the existence of God, the only consequence is a judgment on his part, which is a belief that either he exists, or he does not exist. Thoughts have no parallel to the physical world because it's not symmetrical. An object either exists or it doesn't. However, when considering the object, four options are possible.

(1) No belief exists because one has not considered the possible existence of the object.
(2) A belief that the object does not exist
(3) A belief that the object exists
(4) A belief that one cannot know whether the object exists or not, or a conscious committal to the consequences of (1)

[CalBoy]

What's the opposite of left?

Assume we are discussing the placement of an object in space, the opposite is "not to the left" as opposed to "to the left."
Sorry, but that was rather anti-climatic. I was following in anticipation of something earth shattering. ;)

Seeing how poor a grasp most people have of logic is rather anti-climatic in nature. ;)

[jonbravo77]

Seeing how poor a grasp most people have of logic is rather anti-climatic in nature. ;)

No argument about that...

[CalBoy]

If it is not a belief, then what is it? A belief refers to an active, conscious decision of a human. He's clearly told us he did that to arrive at his answer. How are his views not a belief?

They are a belief in the sense that we have rationale and evidence to put behind them.

However, the opposite of believing in a god is not a belief itself, which is what Jack Flash was trying to argue earlier. An atheist doesn't affirmatively put faith in anything, even his own skepticism. We simply reject the hypothesis put forth by those with faith because we don't see adequate evidence for it.

[Jack Flash]

Assume we are discussing the placement of an object in space, the opposite is "not to the left" as opposed to "to the left."

Your example falls apart pretty quick, doesn't it?

He does not believe

He does believe not

[CalBoy]

Your example falls apart pretty quick, doesn't it?

He does not believe

He does believe

Earlier in the thread you attempted to conflate "he does not believe" with "he believes in no god." My point is that that is a logical falsity.

Just because someone is an atheist does not mean they affirmatively believe in anything, just like if I tell you my coffee is not hot does not qualify it as cold.

[chrmjenkins]

They are a belief in the sense that we have rationale and evidence to put behind them.

However, the opposite of believing in a god is not a belief itself, which is what Jack Flash was trying to argue earlier. An atheist doesn't affirmatively put faith in anything, even his own skepticism. We simply reject the hypothesis put forth by those with faith because we don't see adequate evidence for it.

But aren't you claiming the opposite of believing in a god is in fact what contains more rationale behind it? If that is the definition of atheism, then it is consequently identical to agnosticism. If you aren't willing to put faith in your own skepticism, you are admitting the possibility of God. Djellison made it very clear he admits no possibility. He is actively claiming no God exists, not simply claiming that he is not theistic. His decision has a rationale behind it. If that's not a belief, we seriously need to have a lexicographical party and define all our terms.

[brad.c]

Using left and right as a measure assumes the defining point of view is the centre. When it comes to belief, as in "Do you believe in a god", the answer is instead a scale: if you quantify it in percentage, 0% is no, 100% is yes.
By calling Atheism a belief in the negative, does that mean my answer is -100%?

New Testament math confuses me.

[CalBoy]

But aren't you claiming the opposite of believing in a god is in fact what contains more rationale behind it?

I doubt even you don't claim that. You've admitted before that religion is an exercise in faith, which by its definition is a rather irrational thing.

If that is the definition of atheism, then it is consequently identical to agnosticism.

Not at all. An agnostic says he cannot know and that the question is unanswerable.

An atheist treats the question like any other inquiry and takes up the null hypothesis in the absence of evidence.


If you aren't willing to put faith in your own skepticism, you are admitting the possibility of God.

Sure, in the same way that every scientist admits that there could potentially be a microscopic invisible teapot in the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars. Given the mountain of evidence against that claim, however, most scientists aren't going to treat the possibility very seriously. The same goes for the atheist. The possibility is out there, but we just don't give much credence to it given the enormous lack of evidence and the religious evidence that has been found false.


Djellison made it very clear he admits no possibility. He is actively claiming no God exists, not simply claiming that he is not theistic. His decision has a rationale behind it. If that's not a belief, we seriously need to have a lexicographical party and define all our terms.

I'm not here to hash out the beliefs of any one individual over the other. I'm just telling you what atheism entails and what it doesn't. Jack Flash made categorical claims, and I'm simply responding to those.

[Cassie]

But aren't you claiming the opposite of believing in a god is in fact what contains more rationale behind it? If that is the definition of atheism, then it is consequently identical to agnosticism. If you aren't willing to put faith in your own skepticism, you are admitting the possibility of God. Djellison made it very clear he admits no possibility. He is actively claiming no God exists, not simply claiming that he is not theistic. His decision has a rationale behind it. If that's not a belief, we seriously need to have a lexicographical party and define all our terms.

I think this argument is based on the fact that the English language needs to be completely rewritten. :p

[CalBoy]

I think this argument is based on the fact that the English language needs to be completely rewritten. :p

Wouldn't make much difference; those without faith are an easy target for zealots, and as such, the definition that is chosen for them will always be misused and corrupted.

[Jack Flash]

Earlier in the thread you attempted to conflate "he does not believe" with "he believes in no god." My point is that that is a logical falsity.

Just because someone is an atheist does not mean they affirmatively believe in anything, just like if I tell you my coffee is not hot does not qualify it as cold.
When you can disprove this let me know. Comparing something physical (hot) with something conceptual (belief) won't cut it.

Language gets in the way but the concept is simple. Atheism is not believing in a deity. Another way to say the same thing is: Atheism is believing not in a deity. (Say it like Borat and you'll be happier)

[chrmjenkins]

Not at all. An agnostic says he cannot know and that the question is unanswerable.

An atheist treats the question like any other inquiry and takes up the null hypothesis in the absence of evidence.


I think you can agree that the second option is not how most people seem to characterize their atheism. The rebuttal against the existence of God is usually filled with emotional appeals. That's not how a scientist works. I can't say I recall a debate where each side hasn't resorted to them and other informal methods of argument.

And if I'm following the logic of your statements, would an atheist also say he cannot know because the question can't be answered in the absence of evidence? That's my point-- both atheism and agnosticism seem to say that the question is unanswerable, although for different reasons. The assertion that the question can't be answered is the heart of agnosticism. The problem is, I'm seeing no functional difference.

[Cassie]

Wouldn't make much difference; those without faith are an easy target for zealots, and as such, the definition that is chosen for them will always be misused and corrupted.

It's a shame we can't all just respect each others beliefs/non-beliefs. (or whatever, this thread has me confused.) But I must admit this debate is interesting to follow.

[CalBoy]

When you can disprove this let me know.

Comparing something physical (hot) with something conceptual (belief) won't cut it.

The only reason it won't "cut it" for you is because you can't get beyond the rather simple point that expressing disbelief in one thing does not affirm a belief in something else. You want to create a dichotomy where one does not exist.

Language gets in the way but the concept is simple. Atheism is not believing in a deity. Another way to say the same thing is: Atheism is believing not in a deity. (Say it like Borat and you'll be happier)

That is not another way to make that statement.

This isn't 4th grade grammar; you can't simply move terms around and expect the meaning of the sentence to not change.

[CalBoy]

I think you can agree that the second option is not how most people seem to characterize their atheism. The rebuttal against the existence of God is usually filled with emotional appeals.

Not every atheist is going to be clear as Gelfin or me, just as not every Christian is going to be as clear as you.


And if I'm following the logic of your statements, would an atheist also say he cannot know because the question can't be answered in the absence of evidence?

No, the atheist rejects the hypothesis put forth by religion ("there is a god"). Think of it like a criminal trial. In the absence of evidence, the atheist says "not guilty" whereas the agnostic would choose to abstain (if that was a possibility).

And the point I'm having real trouble with is getting Jack Flash to understand that 'not guilty' is not equivalent to 'innocent.'


That's my point-- both atheism and agnosticism seem to say that the question is unanswerable, although for different reasons.

An atheist never says the question is unanswerable. We wholeheartedly agree that evidence can be considered, and we can use that evidence to reject the notion of a god.

[Gelfin]

Non sequitur. How can the constraints of a faith-based system apply to a reasoned one, unless you're just trying to make a quip that Christians necessarily excuse themselves from all reason and logic?

I was not making a general statement, but only observing what believers actually express, that a question of fact ("does my god exist?") is actually a moral question. People who do not accept the affirmative answer are regarded as being less moral than those who do, and since the original belief is unrelated to evidence, no justification for changing positions is morally permissible to the believer.

And I was certainly not saying that Christians excuse themselves from all reason and logic, but that believers of all stripes excuse themselves from reason and logic when it supports their faith to do so. In other cases, as I observe both earlier and later in the post, they apply the same reason and logic as anyone else.

Your distinction is valid, but the key point is that djellison asserted that the non-belief wasn't even a belief, where you clearly use the positive belief in both cases without reservation. That's what I thought we were challenging.

And I agree with him that he does not have a belief in the way some want the term defined. He does not have a belief the equal of a religious belief.

From what you quoted, you're just re-branding agnosticism. It's just the level to which you acknowledge that a god may exist that is the question. Your belief still admits room for error, or the admits the impossibility of knowing, which is what an agnostic asserts.

Agnosticism is widely regarded as the "50/50" position. Failing the equivocation strategy, believers immediately try to leverage the intellectual honesty of nonbelievers into accepting agnosticism. The aim is, of course, to drive a wedge into the infinitesimal possibility that the a particular set of incredibly implausible beliefs just happens to be correct and widen it, then interpret that response to be a genuine coin flip "I don't know" position and assert that therefore the nonbeliever has a weaker rhetorical position than the believer who claims to know with certainty.

Many people flatly reject the term "agnostic" for this reason.

A discussion I see parallel with this is that there is: are we alone in the universe? Now, interestingly the belief systems and associated religions (or non-religions if you will) are often switched.

It's off-topic, but indeed has some interesting bearing. Others certainly differ, but the answer for me is a fairly pure "I don't know."

The possibility of life like on Earth arising on other planets is already infinitely more likely than that of a deity for the simple reason that we have one irrefutable example of such life arising, and we are it. We know such life is possible, and we know that the Universe is incomprehensibly vast. It seems somewhat likely that Earth wasn't the only place it happened.

On the other hand, as Enrico Fermi quite rightly observed, if Earthlike planets are in any sense typical, then we should already have evidence of other civilizations in hand. Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that Earthlike life is at least uncommon in the Universe, and the question becomes simply how uncommon.

Notice, however, that none of these observations are based on anything like religious faith, which seems to be what you were trying to imply. They are inference and naked speculation from the quite limited and equivocal evidence available. I would certainly like some more conclusive evidence to refine those inferences. Honestly to learn that life on Earth is practically or utterly unique in the Universe would be as amazing as learning that it wasn't.

I infer from your use of "switched" a contrast with a hypothetical believer who takes a firm position that life elsewhere in the Universe cannot exist because his faith insists humanity is a unique creation. I'm not seeing anything here that challenges my basic point.

[Jack Flash]

The only reason it won't "cut it" for you is because you can't get beyond the rather simple point that expressing disbelief in one thing does not affirm a belief in something else. You want to create a dichotomy where one does not exist.


That is not another way to make that statement.

This isn't 4th grade grammar; you can't simply move terms around and expect the meaning of the sentence to not change.

I understand what you want.

I don't believe the coffee is hot doesn't mean I believe the coffee is cold.

But.

I don't believe the coffee is hot does mean I do believe the coffee is not hot.

Substitute god where you will. Also, don't label me a zealot. That's untrue and unfair.

[chrmjenkins]

Not every atheist is going to be clear as Gelfin or me, just as not every Christian is going to be as clear as you.

There you go with the flattery. It will get you nothing! ;)


No, the atheist rejects the hypothesis put forth by religion ("there is a god"). Think of it like a criminal trial. In the absence of evidence, the atheist says "not guilty" whereas the agnostic would choose to abstain (if that was a possibility).

And the point I'm having real trouble with is getting Jack Flash to understand that 'not guilty' is not equivalent to 'innocent.'

An atheist never says the question is unanswerable. We wholeheartedly agree that evidence can be considered, and we can use that evidence to reject the notion of a god.

Ok, but you yourself said "An atheist treats the question like any other inquiry and takes up the null hypothesis in the absence of evidence. "

So, which is it? There's not enough evidence, or there is enough evidence to reject the notion of a god?

If there isn't enough evidence and the question is not treated, do you agree it is functionally equivalent to agnosticism?

And for what it's worth, my experience tells me more atheists subscribe to how djellison treats the question, now allowing the spirit of skepticism to inject doubt into the conclusion. This is what I'm trying to characterize as a very active belief. A pure commitment to skepticism with a tentative declaration of non-belief is different, but I still can't see how any active decision on a matter is not, by definition, a belief. I would only concede it as not being a belief when there is an active expression of not being able to know, not an omission of possible error staying true to a purely skeptical spirit.


And I agree with him that he does not have a belief in the way some want the term defined. He does not have a belief the equal of a religious belief.

I would agree he doesn't, but I can't understand the logic behind wanting to say a belief of some sort doesn't exist. It's like belief and faith are necessarily connected, and it's somehow a dirty word. As you later refer to a wedge, it's almost as if it's a reaction to a wedge that has no logical backing behind fearing it.


Agnosticism is widely regarded as the "50/50" position. Failing the equivocation strategy, believers immediately try to leverage the intellectual honesty of nonbelievers into accepting agnosticism. The aim is, of course, to drive a wedge into the infinitesimal possibility that the a particular set of incredibly implausible beliefs just happens to be correct and widen it, then interpret that response to be a genuine coin flip "I don't know" position and assert that therefore the nonbeliever has a weaker rhetorical position than the believer who claims to know with certainty.

Many people flatly reject the term "agnostic" for this reason.

That would certainly clear up the debate if we dispensed of the term. Then, atheists would have to fear being "wedged" into a remarkably similar definition. I press the issue not because I'm forcing someone into a weaker rhetorical position, but because most, as seemingly conceded by CalBoy, aren't even honest enough to admit the consequences of their position. For some, this may be a conscious omission, but for others, it seems to me that they don't even understand the consequences of the definition and resort to some absolute definition of non-existence that allows for no disqualification.

[brad.c]

Also, don't label me a zealot. That's untrue and unfair.

I always thought that zealots are those who believe 110%.

[Jack Flash]

I infer from your use of "switched" a contrast with a hypothetical believer who takes a firm position that life elsewhere in the Universe cannot exist because his faith insists humanity is a unique creation. I'm not seeing anything here that challenges my basic point.

I often hear that god exists because he just has to. Life is too complex. There's no way he couldn't.

I often heat that other life exists because it just has to. There's just so much universe out there. There's no way it couldn't.

[djellison]

Others certainly differ, but the answer for me is a fairly pure "I don't know."

It's got nothing at all to do with the thread - but that is the only valid answer w.r.t life and the universe. Drakes equation has so many variables for which we simply don't have any clue as to a value for. Missions like Kepler will help fill in some of the blanks, but there are still many values we are unlikely ever to have even the broadest constraints for.

[CalBoy]

So, which is it? There's not enough evidence, or there is enough evidence to reject the notion of a god?

With the current level of evidence, an atheist (me included) would say that we can reject the notion of god. That doesn't make it permanent, as new evidence can alter that holding. That's really what makes atheism fundamentally different from any belief system or agnosticism.

[Rt&Dzine]

Not at all. An agnostic says he cannot know and that the question is unanswerable.


I don't know why so many people can't understand this.

[djellison]

So, which is it? There's not enough evidence, or there is enough evidence to reject the notion of a god?

If there isn't enough evidence and the question is not treated, do you agree it is functionally equivalent to agnosticism? .

Here's my story - make of it what you will.

I have never ever asked myself 'Is there a God'.

The question has never arrisen in the process of developing a persona, morals, my 'universal context' if you will. I have had no cause to ever ask such a question of myself. If I saw, for one second, a slim suggestion that such a thing might exist, then maybe I'd have to start asking that question. But I see no evidence that a God exists at all, thus, by default, I have no leap of faith to make to either believe or not believe in a God. There has been no decision making process. I am at a point now where I don't 'believe' there is no God. There just isn't one. Not a belief. Just, to me,a fact. A fact that some disagree with. I don't know what I'd call it - 'personal fact' perhaps. That there is no God is simply something I know. I don't believe it. That's just how the world is.

The very mention of 'evidence' may make it seem like I've pulled together data, to make a case for or against and thus must have asked myself 'Is there a God?' - but I can assure you, that's not how my thought processes have occured. I've never ever believed in a God. I have never prayed for anything. I have never felt any presence, felt the influence, impact, emotion or existence of any thing that can in anyway be described as a deity.

Consciously, I have known my 'stance' since I was about 13. And since then - I have seen what I consider evidence against the existence of any deity. I have read the Bible cover to cover, since then, in the same way that someone might read a book having seen the movie. Turns out I thought the same about the book (Bible) as the movie ( church, religion etc). Both complete nonsense.* What I mean by that is that I attended Church (I was obliged to) via school for about 15 years. I was in two difference school choirs, sang great choral music, and ironically, sang at the funeral of the vicar of my old school. But in Church I was always an outsider. I partook in the basic stuff thru a combination of politeness, enjoying singing, and not wanting to get told off for not taking part. But at no point did I ever believe one single word of it.

So - to say that I 'believe' there to be no God just simply does not reflect my own personal philosophy - it's just wrong.

At this point, the English language, the amorphous and changing definition of 'atheist' 'agnostic' etc etc. essentially fails me. People have tried to 'box' me into about three different categories in this thread - and none of them are especially accurate. The least inaccurate is Strong Atheist - but the definition of that infers thought processes that I have simply never had.

The only analogy I can try and make is this.... have you ever asked yourself "Is there a 28 ft tall Otter with a top hat, a Boston Red Sox Shirt, carrying the lost city of Atlantis on his head in my Garden"

Of course you haven't - why would you even ask such a thing.

That's what I think about 'God'.

*This point is one that makes iMac/Cheese so fascinating. How can two people read the same text and come out of it with complete polar opposites of opinion. I came out the far end thinking "That's the biggest load of made up, self contradicting bollocks I've ever read". I think it's fair so say Cheese's mileage varied from mine somewhat. I can almost understand why some people liked 'Cloverfield'. But the Bible? I just don't get it.

[chrmjenkins]

Here's my story - make of it what you will.

I have never ever asked myself 'Is there a God'.

The question has never arrisen in the process of developing a persona, morals, my 'universal context' if you will. I have had no cause to ever ask such a question of myself. If I saw, for one second, a slim suggestion that such a thing might exist, then maybe I'd have to start asking that question. But I see no evidence that a God exists at all, thus, by default, I have no leap of faith to make to either believe or not believe in a God. There has been no decision making process.

So, going by your previous statements at birth, you started an atheist, and throughout all these years of school, you've never once treated the possibility of God's existence?

I am at a point now where I don't 'believe' there is no God. There just isn't one. Not a belief. Just, to me,a fact. A fact that some disagree with. I don't know what I'd call it - 'personal fact' perhaps. That there is no God is simply something I know. I don't believe it. That's just how the world is.

How is your assessment of the state of the world not a belief? You've obviously actively engaged your mind in this and have a conclusion. How is that not belief? What is your aversion to the word?

A simple definition is this: something believed; an opinion or conviction

Are you not convinced of your conclusion?

[djellison]

You're playing semantics at this stage to be honest. Given the context of this discussion - and the fact that 'belief' is prescribed as a link between a person and their 'god' when in this discussion zone - I simply refuse to consider it an appropriate word to describe my stance. Also, the world 'conclusions' is probably inappropriate. That would suggest a study, investigation etc. As I've tried to explain - no such decision making process has occurred.

I don't believe in Santa. However, I don't think it's an appropriate turn of phrase to state that I believe Santa doesn't exist. That's not a belief. It's a fact. I've tried again and again to make that analogy and others like it - and no one has really had a come back on them other than that they like to leave the door ajar for them to be wrong. So I can but turn up the analogy to something so ridiculous, outragous and just down right wrong that the door could not be even slightly ajar.

I see no chocolate on the arm of this chair.

It do not believe there to be no chocolate on the arm of the chair - it's just the way things are.

I see no god.

I do not believe there to be no god. It's just the way things are.

I really can't think of better ways to explain it. I just object to being told that my lack of belief in a god is, itself, a belief. It just isn't.

[chrmjenkins]

You're the one who is playing semantics by wanting to put the word "belief" into context. I'm trying to keep it out of context. What does the word, alone by itself, mean? That's the only point I'm trying to get across.

Take in its purest, least impugned way. Do you believe that God does not exist?

I believe in God, and you don't. While the implications of belief in each context vary widely, they don't change the definition of the root term, they only provide a contextual connotation for it.

[djellison]

Do you believe that God does not exist?


I do not believe that, to be an appropriate phrase.

You 'believe' (merriam-webster says 1 a: to have a firm religious faith) that God exists.

All the dictionary definitions I'm seeing for 'belief' infer doubt or religion or faith or opinion or a degree of confidence. That, to me, dictates that 'believe' is simply the wrong word.

The only phrase I can use is this.

I know God does not exist.

You will now, obviously, say - 'How can you know God doesn't exist'.

The obvious response to that is - How can you know God does exist....(and the answer to that is an act of faith which I do not share)

I know there's no chocolate on the arm of this chair. Sorry to be so blunt about it.
I see no chocolate. I see no god. ergo - I know God does not exist.

Why is it you say you 'Believe' God exists. Why don't you say you 'Know' God exists?

[chrmjenkins]

I do not believe that, to be an appropriate phrase.

You 'believe' (merriam-webster says 1 a: to have a firm religious faith) that God exists.

All the dictionary definitions I'm seeing for 'belief' infer doubt or religion or faith or opinion or a degree of confidence. That, to me, dictates that 'believe' is simply the wrong word.

The only phrase I can use is this.

I know God does not exist.

You will now, obviously, say - 'How can you know God doesn't exist'.

The obvious response to that is - How can you know God does exist....(and the answer to that is an act of faith which I do not share)

I know there's no chocolate on the arm of this chair. Sorry to be so blunt about it.
I see no chocolate. I see no god. ergo - I know God does not exist.

You being able to observe something empirically does not make it exist. Similarly, the converse is true as well. You not being able to observe something does not make it non-existent. If you wish to resort to a "seeing is believing" mentality, that is fine, but surely you acknowledge existence is possible without apprehension via the senses?

[djellison]

existence is possible without apprehension via the senses?

Of course.

You allude, of course, to the biblical 'you can't see the wind, but it exists' or some such phrase meant in suggest that just because you can't 'see' God, it is not to say God doesn't exist.

However - that does not mean that anything that isn't seen can exist.

Indulge me - Why is it you say you 'Believe' God exists. Why don't you say you 'Know' God exists?

[Gelfin]

I often hear that god exists because he just has to. Life is too complex. There's no way he couldn't.

I often heat that other life exists because it just has to. There's just so much universe out there. There's no way it couldn't.

Superficial similarities in phrasing aside, you're completely overlooking the fundamental difference in these inferences. They're two different arguments.

In the former case, a specific cause is inferred from a specific outcome. It's like saying, "my car has a flat, therefore tire gremlins must exist, for they flattened my tire." Countless other explanations are possible, many of them likely better, and there is a missing term that explains why tire gremlins and not something else. Even the far more likely culprit, a nail, is something you ordinarily wouldn't assume that without looking for one.

In the latter case, no such inexplicable terms appear. The argument is an appeal to a reasonably expected consequence of sheer numbers. I have had a nail in my tire before, as have others. Therefore I know with certainty that there are sometimes nails in the roadway. I do not know the exact likelihood of getting a nail in my tire on any one commute, and in fact I know it to be a fairly uncommon event, but I know I cover a lot of road over the long term, and anticipate covering a lot more. Even though it is not certain in the strictest sense, it is entirely fair for me to conclude that at some point in the future I will once again have a flat as a result of a nail.

[chrmjenkins]

Of course.

You allude, of course, to the biblical 'you can't see the wind, but it exists' or some such phrase meant in suggest that just because you can't 'see' God, it is not to say God doesn't exist.

I'm making no Biblical allusions. Purely arguments based on the interpretations of language.


However - that does not mean that anything that isn't seen can exist.

No, it simply means you can't assert non-existence on this alone.


Indulge me - Why is it you say you 'Believe' God exists. Why don't you say you 'Know' God exists?

Because I acknowledge that faith exists when logic and reason alone cannot fully substantiate a belief. If I knew for certain, faith would be unnecessary.

[djellison]

No, it simply means you can't assert non-existence on this alone.


Non existence is not something you assert, in this context. Non-existence is the default. The onus is on this 'God' to make itself known to me in some way. You are saying you believe in a God - what gives you reason to do so? I have never, ever, seen, felt, sensed, touched, observed, read, heard or in any way whatsoever been given any reason to believe such a thing exists.


If I knew for certain, faith would be unnecessary.

But if God is real - why is 'faith' required at all?

[skunk]

A dog without clothes is not undressed.

[chrmjenkins]

Non existence is not something you assert, in this context. Non-existence is the default. The onus is on this 'God' to make itself known to me in some way. You are saying you believe in a God - what gives you reason to do so? I have never, ever, seen, felt, sensed, touched, observed, read, heard or in any way whatsoever been given any reason to believe such a thing exists.

And I have. The problem I have with your point is that you've been presented with copious amounts of information about the Christian God. Whatever decision you make regarding it, it's an informed one. That constitutes an belief asserted, to me.


But if God is real - why is 'faith' required at all?

If He were "real" in the sense that no one could reasonably deny His existence, faith wouldn't be required at all. So, obviously, we have different standards for what we can determine to be real. Before you say that you haven't had an experience that makes you believe He is real, He's obviously revealed Himself to you through the scriptures you've read. You choose not to believe what has been placed before you. For whatever reason, it doesn't cut it for you.

A dog without clothes is not undressed.

Yet a turkey without clothes can clearly be dressed.

[djellison]

you've been presented with copious amounts of information about the Christian God.

Have you read Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings or watched a whole series of Lost?

You've been presented with copious ammounts of information about the characters therein - but you don't believe them to be real.

Why is this 'God' any different. Why believe in a Christian 'God' rather than Allah or any one of a thousand other deities?

What, specifically, exactly, has given you just cause to believe in a God - that goes for any Christian reading the thread.

[AceWilfong]

Whether it's the poorly-rendered tortilla images, or the absence of miracles; I don't see evidence of a deity. I DO see plenty of evidence of a human need for at least, one.:rolleyes:

[skunk]

The problem I have with your point is that you've been presented with copious amounts of information about the Christian God.What is "information"? Is it facts and figures? Is it verifiable historical record? Is it archaeological evidence? Is it demonstrable cause and effect? If it is none of these things, it is not "information" but baseless speculation and unfounded assertion.

[Pika]

Yet a turkey without clothes can clearly be dressed.

http://www.biblestoriesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/atheism.jpg

[chrmjenkins]

Have you read Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings or watched a whole series of Lost?

You've been presented with copious ammounts of information about the characters therein - but you don't believe them to be real.

Why is this 'God' any different. Why believe in a Christian 'God' rather than Allah or any one of a thousand other deities?

What, specifically, exactly, has given you just cause to believe in a God - that goes for any Christian reading the thread.

This easiest distinction between the Bible and these stories is that we have evidence for the existence of the people contained in the stories. Jesus is usually accepted as having existed. We've found ruins of Solomon's temple. While you may or may not agree with the stories about what they did, they certainly existed.

People at the time of authorship would have even greater reason to believe they existed. Thus, we take on faith that the words they penned are true. However, that alone is not enough. We all feel as though God has revealed Himself to us. It's a very personal and mystical experience. Because of that, we must also submit that it measures up to no standard of objectivity. We understand that and embrace the belief as faith-based.

What is "information"? Is it facts and figures? Is it verifiable historical record? Is it archaeological evidence? Is it demonstrable cause and effect? If it is none of these things, it is not "information" but baseless speculation and unfounded assertion.

I specifically chose that word because it was the least assuming. If you wish to parse information in a different way, okay, but please tell me what word you would prefer that would encapsulate verifiable historical record, archaeological evidence along with "baseless speculation" and "unfounded assertion"? If you prefer, I can use data, which in the common context I use refers to unprocessed information.

[djellison]

Thus, we take on faith that the words they penned are true.

The words are self contradicting, they contain instructions to commit obscene disgusting totally immoral acts, they contain wives tales, fairy stories, metaphors.

It's old - but interesting : http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
"There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels--the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ--were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon."

Or something more modern
http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm
"All the divine aspects of the Jesus figure are "stolen" from earlier similar dying and resurrected godmen, such as Dionysos, Osiris, Hercules, Attis, Mithra, Horus, Zarathustra and others. Actually there are few (if any) things about Jesus that are original at all. Jesus is just the Jewish version of this popular mythic Saviour- character in the Mystery-religions of Antiquity"

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html is also great reading.
Sadly - I see nothing to suggest that the Bible is anything other than loose collection of carefully selected wives tales, rumours and fairy stories. There is also evidence of many Jesus-like personalities in the same region, in the same era.

But as a creation entirely of Man, as a means to control people...it makes a huge amount of sense.

An eye for an eye
Thou shalt not kill.

OOps.

Funny how you - surrounded by Christian people - have turned out to be a Christian.

Yes those surrounded by Islamic people, will turn out to be Islamic.

You think the Bible is true ( or at least, parts of it, or you would have sold your computer and given the cash to the poor). Yes someone 6000 miles away thinks the Quran is true. You can't both be right. I suggest that neither of your are.

Is God self-geographically-censoring?

Sorry to waffle - but so much of Religion and 'God' makes zero, and I mean ZERO sense even with the tiniest iota of considered thought. It's so clearly and obviously a work of man, a work of fiction, that I find it offensive to be told it's an act of belief to consider it such.

[iJohnHenry]

Because I acknowledge that faith exists when logic and reason alone cannot YET fully substantiate a belief. If I knew for certain, faith would be unnecessary.

Fixed that up a bit, and I concede that it my never happen in the life-time of Earth (before the red giant rears it's ugly head, or MAD becomes a fact).

http://www.biblestoriesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/atheism.jpg

Pictures of Lee are everywhere. :(



;)

[imac/cheese]

*This point is one that makes iMac/Cheese so fascinating. How can two people read the same text and come out of it with complete polar opposites of opinion. I came out the far end thinking "That's the biggest load of made up, self contradicting bollocks I've ever read". I think it's fair so say Cheese's mileage varied from mine somewhat. I can almost understand why some people liked 'Cloverfield'. But the Bible? I just don't get it.

Biblically, as you probably know, the difference is that you continually reject the promptings of the Holy Spirit so you see the scriptures and God's plan as foolishness. Those who live in the spirit see the wisdom of God's plan.

“We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks” (1 Cor. 1:23).

“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him” (1 Cor. 2:14).

[skunk]

“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him” (1 Cor. 2:14).Many men with "the Spirit" believe in different gods. A belief in those gods necessarily brings a disbelief in your god. This is making an entirely false equivalence between "belief" and "Christianity".

[djellison]

continually reject the promptings of the Holy Spirit

This is what I'm talking about. Sorry to be rude - but what the hell are you talking about. 'Holy Spirit'. I've never seen it, felt it, sensed it, heard it - how can I reject it, let alone continually.

You reject the promptings of hundreds and hundreds of other 'holy spirits' and 'gods' etc etc.

Why?

(as ever - Skunk phrases things much better than I)

[skunk]

This easiest distinction between the Bible and these stories is that we have evidence for the existence of the people contained in the stories. Jesus is usually accepted as having existed. We've found ruins of Solomon's temple. While you may or may not agree with the stories about what they did, they certainly existed.There is absolutely no "certainty" that Jesus existed, any more than that King Arthur existed. There is no more certainty that Solomon existed than that Agammemnon existed.I specifically chose that word because it was the least assuming. If you wish to parse information in a different way, okay, but please tell me what word you would prefer that would encapsulate verifiable historical record, archaeological evidence along with "baseless speculation" and "unfounded assertion"?Why conflate those things? The archaeology is questionable, the historical record is so tenuous as to be speculative itself. Again, the "information" you offer is no more than the "information" available about the Trojan War. As such it merits the title of "legend" or "mythology" far more than it does either "data" or "information".

[colinmack]

...not sure I can remember this much liberty being taken with the English language to get around discomfort/distaste with certain words/concepts.

Belief does not equal religion. I don't believe there is an actual Santa, that doesn't automatically make me part of some non-believing anti-Santa religion. But it does constitute an active conviction and belief on my part.

If you don't believe there is a God, great. Doesn't make you bad, immoral, anti-God, or anything else - it presumably means you've simply made a conscious decision based on your own opinion/convictions/facts/observations/whatever that you don't think something is real. Nothing wrong with that, I applaud anybody for having the guts to stand by their convictions. But I disagree that that doesn't constitute a belief - and I would argue my definition is more broadly agreed/accepted than the narrow definition being thrown around here (in other words, a belief does not imply a religious view, it's simply an opinion/conviction in some thing/view being true or valid). I believe there's nobody in my basement right now, but just because it deals with the 'absence of people in my basement due to lack of evidence' doesn't mean it's not a belief [note to self: go check the basement].

If we want to redefine the English language though, then I guess all bets are off :cool:

Now having said all that, I believe I'll go have a beer. I believe I still have some in my fridge... :p

[imac/cheese]

Many men with "the Spirit" believe in different gods. A belief in those gods necessarily brings a disbelief in your god. This is making an entirely false equivalence between "belief" and "Christianity".

I don't believe those men have the Spirit. I believe that they have been misled to believe in false religions. Of course, these men without the spirit would reject the things that come from the Spirit of God thinking they were foolishness.

[brad.c]

I believe that they have been misled to believe in false religions.AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Really? Who would ever be so gullible as to let that happen?

[Iscariot]

Really? Who would ever be so gullible as to let that happen?

Approximately 4 600 000 000 people would be that gullible.

[skunk]

I don't believe those men have the Spirit. I believe that they have been misled to believe in false religions. Of course, these men without the spirit would reject the things that come from the Spirit of God thinking they were foolishness.Now this is utter, utter foolishness. Each and every religion holds that possession of or communication with their proprietary "Spirit" is the key to salvation and/or understanding. For you, as a believer in one particular baseless religion, to decry all other equally baseless religions as "false" really says it all. You have exposed the fundamental flaw and monumental arrogance in all monotheistic religion.

[kainjow]

What is the argument for Christianity?

[skunk]

What is the argument for Christianity?Extremely weak.

[brad.c]

Approximately 4 600 000 000 people would be that gullible.
You cut out the laughter!
What is the argument for Christianity?
Great retirement plan, with a satisfaction guarantee.

[imac/cheese]

Now this is utter, utter foolishness.

Of course it is foolishness to you.

Each and every religion holds that possession of or communication with their proprietary "Spirit" is the key to salvation and/or understanding. For you, as a believer in one particular baseless religion, to decry all other equally baseless religions as "false" really says it all. You have exposed the fundamental flaw and monumental arrogance in all monotheistic religion.

You sound surprised. What exactly were you expecting? Did you think I was going to say that I believe in Christianity, but all the otehr religions are just as valid? Jesus says that the only way to heaven is through Him (Wasn't that one of the points that started this entire thread) so of course I would believe that others trying to get into heaven or reincarnation or Nirvana or whatever through other means are not going to make it.

I do not see a fundamental flaw of Christianity in this belief. I believe that people are given a natural, in-born desire to seek God (except djellison). In that seeking, people will latch onto partial truths or even complete lies and deceptions. I also believe that the Bible is the revealed Word of God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.

Might I possibly be latching onto something untrue in my own desire to seek God? Possibly. I will not deny that it is a possibility. Despite that possibility, I still believe that Christianity is correct. My belief comes from personal experience, spiritual reflection, prayer, reading the Bible, and most importantly obedience. The more I obey God, the more He reveals to me.

I also understand that people of other faiths are able to say that they believe only their religion is correct and that they have come to that belief in much the same way I came to mine. I will gladly have discussions with those people about their experiences and tell them about my own. Hopefully, some mutual understanding will occur between the two of us.

[dukebound85]

Assume we are discussing the placement of an object in space, the opposite is "not to the left" as opposed to "to the left."


Seeing how poor a grasp most people have of logic is rather anti-climatic in nature. ;)

doesnt opposite depend on how you define it?


and to the thread in general, are we really just discussing the definition of belief?

its easy

belief: what one holds to be true

[brad.c]

From here:

You sound surprised. What exactly were you expecting? Did you think I was going to say that I believe in Christianity, but all the otehr religions are just as valid?

to here:

I also understand that people of other faiths are able to say that they believe only their religion is correct and that they have come to that belief in much the same way I came to mine. I will gladly have discussions with those people about their experiences and tell them about my own. Hopefully, some mutual understanding will occur between the two of us.

there is disconnect, unless by understanding you mean that they will change their minds and agree with you.

[iJohnHenry]

Now having said all that, I believe I'll go have a beer. I believe I still have some in my fridge... :p

I'll drink to that.

As to that large number, Lemmings do certain things as a group also.

[That-Is-Bull]

I also understand that people of other faiths are able to say that they believe only their religion is correct and that they have come to that belief in much the same way I came to mine. I will gladly have discussions with those people about their experiences and tell them about my own.

Let's say somebody in a different part of the world led the exact same life as you, but because of their location, they believed in a different religion. Do you honestly believe that a loving God would send that person (and the billions of other non-Christians) to hell to burn and suffer for all of eternity simply because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or do you think that that person, who has never heard of Christianity, secretly believes in it and is just trying to be a rebel to piss God off?

[skunk]

Of course it is foolishness to you.Not just to me, I suspect. The whole idea that you can differentiate and validate your deity vis-à-vis others simply by capitalising his title displays a blithe arrogance which is utterly mind-boggling. This attitude is what religious wars are caused by. Everyone whose deity is not capitalised is no doubt an infidel.

You sound surprised. What exactly were you expecting? Did you think I was going to say that I believe in Christianity, but all the otehr religions are just as valid? Jesus says that the only way to heaven is through Him (Wasn't that one of the points that started this entire thread) so of course I would believe that others trying to get into heaven or reincarnation or Nirvana or whatever through other means are not going to make it.

I do not see a fundamental flaw of Christianity in this belief.That you arrogate "heaven" as a proprietary delusion is likewise extraordinary. Perhaps you should read Abou Ben Adhem for a slightly sounder ethic.

I believe that people are given a natural, in-born desire to seek God (except djellison).Not in the least funny, nor remotely defensible.

I also understand that people of other faiths are able to say that they believe only their religion is correct and that they have come to that belief in much the same way I came to mine. I will gladly have discussions with those people about their experiences and tell them about my own. Hopefully, some mutual understanding will occur between the two of us.How could that be? You believe that you possess the truth and that they believe in false deities and lying doctrine. Where is there any possibility of finding common ground?

[jonbravo77]

Of course it is foolishness to you.



You sound surprised. What exactly were you expecting? Did you think I was going to say that I believe in Christianity, but all the otehr religions are just as valid? Jesus says that the only way to heaven is through Him (Wasn't that one of the points that started this entire thread) so of course I would believe that others trying to get into heaven or reincarnation or Nirvana or whatever through other means are not going to make it.

I do not see a fundamental flaw of Christianity in this belief. I believe that people are given a natural, in-born desire to seek God (except djellison). In that seeking, people will latch onto partial truths or even complete lies and deceptions. I also believe that the Bible is the revealed Word of God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.

Might I possibly be latching onto something untrue in my own desire to seek God? Possibly. I will not deny that it is a possibility. Despite that possibility, I still believe that Christianity is correct. My belief comes from personal experience, spiritual reflection, prayer, reading the Bible, and most importantly obedience. The more I obey God, the more He reveals to me.

I also understand that people of other faiths are able to say that they believe only their religion is correct and that they have come to that belief in much the same way I came to mine. I will gladly have discussions with those people about their experiences and tell them about my own. Hopefully, some mutual understanding will occur between the two of us.

Sorry, I respect your beliefs but I am going to have to agree with the others that say there probably can't be a mutual understanding due to your beliefs.

It boils down to this, in my opinion, to think that God discriminates against others beliefs is lunacy, and in my opinion blasphemy. Your God teaches you to love thy neighbor and acceptance but then you say he tells you that if those people don't believe the way you believe don't worry, they won't be in heaven for you to deal with.

Now, my cynical view. I am Jewish, I don't believe in Judaism but I do believe in God. I don't believe in any religion that would make anyone think that if you don't believe this way than to hell with you, literally... You want to go on and on about Jesus and the new testament but without the Jews there wouldn't be you and your religion, let's try to have a little respect for what others believe and try to open our minds a bit that God is something greater than what you think. this is directed to imac's post not to anyone that does not believe in God, there is nothing wrong with that, in my opinion...

[CalBoy]

doesnt opposite depend on how you define it?

No, not really. Logically the opposite of an affirmative is the absence of an affirmative, not a negation (and vice versa).

In common parlance we like to equivocate opposites with entirely separate criteria, but that isn't always the case. Very few things are perfect dichotomies.

[rhsgolfer33]

You sound surprised. What exactly were you expecting? Did you think I was going to say that I believe in Christianity, but all the otehr religions are just as valid? Jesus says that the only way to heaven is through Him (Wasn't that one of the points that started this entire thread) so of course I would believe that others trying to get into heaven or reincarnation or Nirvana or whatever through other means are not going to make it.


I generally try to stay out of these religion threads, but this suckered me in.

Its certainly not impossible to believe in Christianity and hold other religions as valid. In my opinion, at least when it comes to Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, we all believe in the same God, we just choose to follow a different "messiah." Just because I believe that through Jesus I will end up in "Heaven," that doesn't directly invalidate someone else's belief that they will end up in whatever they believe in. Maybe its not even the same "place." Maybe everyone that believes in different religions all end up in whatever place or places it is that they believe in; its definitely not a reason for me to think that their religion is invalid, it just differs slightly from my own. I also think religions not based on anything similar to Christianity are valid, I might not follow the those beliefs myself, but I would never invalidate someone else's religion based on my own.

Really these arguments come down to how you interpret words edited by various groups of people through thousands of years; chances are the message that the original authors wanted to get across isn't even being presented anymore and that messages of much importance aren't even included in the canon. I have no problem accepting that the biblical canon is a document that is fallible, written, and edited by normal humans. I also doubt if Jesus would want me to reject someone else's beliefs as invalid, especially since that would consist of rejecting his views as a Jew.

[chrmjenkins]

It's old - but interesting : http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
"There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels--the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ--were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon."

From what I've seen, it's closer to 60 years than it is 150. Still, documents can be lost/destroyed. This is not an unlikely scenario for what would have been a small sect of followers after Jesus' death. A vast wealth of information was completely lost in the fires at the library of Alexandria. Still, none of the existence or non-existence of documents prevents oral histories from perpetuating the gospels.


Or something more modern
http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm
"All the divine aspects of the Jesus figure are "stolen" from earlier similar dying and resurrected godmen, such as Dionysos, Osiris, Hercules, Attis, Mithra, Horus, Zarathustra and others. Actually there are few (if any) things about Jesus that are original at all. Jesus is just the Jewish version of this popular mythic Saviour- character in the Mystery-religions of Antiquity"

Is the idea of a lone savior such a novel literary device? Obviously, it is repeated throughout history from different cultures. There are also a prevalence of flood myths and legends. It's also quite possible the concept of a savior could be sourced from Old Testament prophecies and find its way into other cultures before Jesus even existed.


Funny how you - surrounded by Christian people - have turned out to be a Christian.

Yes those surrounded by Islamic people, will turn out to be Islamic.

You think the Bible is true ( or at least, parts of it, or you would have sold your computer and given the cash to the poor). Yes someone 6000 miles away thinks the Quran is true. You can't both be right. I suggest that neither of your are.

Is God self-geographically-censoring?

Many Christians believe that God reveals Himself to all people. So, it's certainly possible someone could have a revelation from God without ever having read the Bible or met a Christian. I've heard accounts of people claiming that they felt they knew Jesus even before the Bible gave Him a name. Is it possible that are other ways to God? Sure, I have to consider that, but my best source of information is Jesus' words that tell me the only way to the Father is through Him.

There is absolutely no "certainty" that Jesus existed, any more than that King Arthur existed. There is no more certainty that Solomon existed than that Agammemnon existed.Why conflate those things? The archaeology is questionable, the historical record is so tenuous as to be speculative itself. Again, the "information" you offer is no more than the "information" available about the Trojan War. As such it merits the title of "legend" or "mythology" far more than it does either "data" or "information".

Fine, call it what you will. I'm done arguing whether or not words are allowed to have generic meaning.

Now this is utter, utter foolishness. Each and every religion holds that possession of or communication with their proprietary "Spirit" is the key to salvation and/or understanding. For you, as a believer in one particular baseless religion, to decry all other equally baseless religions as "false" really says it all. You have exposed the fundamental flaw and monumental arrogance in all monotheistic religion.

No one decries it, it's built into the faith. It's not a conclusion we arrive at by considering our faith, it's built into the tenets of it.

Isn't the nature of religion to be "arrogant"? After all, if you have a religion claiming to know the truth, why would it concede other religions to be true as well?

Let's say somebody in a different part of the world led the exact same life as you, but because of their location, they believed in a different religion. Do you honestly believe that a loving God would send that person (and the billions of other non-Christians) to hell to burn and suffer for all of eternity simply because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or do you think that that person, who has never heard of Christianity, secretly believes in it and is just trying to be a rebel to piss God off?

As was said before, many Christian's believe God reveals Himself to everyone, despite their locations.

Not just to me, I suspect. The whole idea that you can differentiate and validate your deity vis-à-vis others simply by capitalising his title displays a blithe arrogance which is utterly mind-boggling. This attitude is what religious wars are caused by. Everyone whose deity is not capitalised is no doubt an infidel.

We do it as a sign of respect. Have any of us demanded you observe the same rules?


Not in the least funny, nor remotely defensible.

Enough with the feigned outrage. It was a playful jab at the fact djellison's words would make him seem exempt from the thought processes that all other humans undertake, and it was only compounded by his re-definition of terms.


How could that be? You believe that you possess the truth and that they believe in false deities and lying doctrine. Where is there any possibility of finding common ground?

Jesus tells us to love thy neighbor. He doesn't qualify that by saying "only if they're Christian."

No, not really. Logically the opposite of an affirmative is the absence of an affirmative, not a negation (and vice versa).

In common parlance we like to equivocate opposites with entirely separate criteria, but that isn't always the case. Very few things are perfect dichotomies.

I find that the square of opposition is helpful:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/image-a.jpg

[That-Is-Bull]

As was said before, many Christian's believe God reveals Himself to everyone, despite their locations.

Oh okay, so us non-Christians secretly know that God and Christianity are true but we choose to not believe or choose to follow another religion just to be rebels and piss off God. All ~four billion of us. Right?

[emt1]

Until a religion can actually prove the basis for their beliefs, there is no logically sound reason to believe in any of them. Case closed. End of story.

[jav6454]

Until a religion can actually prove the basis for their beliefs, there is no logically sound reason to believe in any of them. Case closed. End of story.

True.

However, if you do wish to believe you do so by Faith.

[skunk]

Fine, call it what you will. I'm done arguing whether or not words are allowed to have generic meaning.The word "information" very strongly implies derivation from a fact-based reality.

Isn't the nature of religion to be "arrogant"? After all, if you have a religion claiming to know the truth, why would it concede other religions to be true as well? How can you possibly reach common ground with someone who believes absolutely that the very centre of your being is a lie?