Christianity.

[MegaMillions]

So, I recently started dating a christian girl who identifies herself as christian because of her upbringing and her family, but she is by no means fanatically religious in any way. Aside from believing in God, she doesn't believe any of the christian stories that don't make sense. She accepts anything that has been scientifically proven.

It's amazing that i'm even dating her. I'm the type of person who would write people off for being christian, but this girl is a real thinker. She thinks for herself and forms her own opinions on practically everything. Anything illogical about the christian religion, she abandons.

But because she's christian, I just keep thinking about the whole religious situation in the world, and I don't understand why everybody is christian. Why is a massive portion of America christians? Why did this happen? At the end of Religious, Bill Maher points out that if you belonged to any sort of social group that was involved in as much destruction, stupidity and lunacy as religion has been, you would resign in protest.

What is the deal with christianity? Why do honest, loving, wonderful people identify themselves with a group that has been responsible for acts of sheer lunacy and the deaths of millions throughout history?

[P-Worm]

So, I recently started dating a christian girl who identifies herself as christian because of her upbringing and her family, but she is by no means fanatically religious in any way. Aside from believing in God, she doesn't believe any of the christian stories that don't make sense. She accepts anything that has been scientifically proven.

It's amazing that i'm even dating her. I'm the type of person who would write people off for being christian, but this girl is a real thinker. She thinks for herself and forms her own opinions on practically everything. Anything illogical about the christian religion, she abandons.

But because she's christian, I just keep thinking about the whole religious situation in the world, and I don't understand why everybody is christian. Why is a massive portion of America christians? Why did this happen? At the end of Religious, Bill Maher points out that if you belonged to any sort of social group that was involved in as much destruction, stupidity and lunacy as religion has been, you would resign in protest.

What is the deal with christianity? Why do honest, loving, wonderful people identify themselves with a group that has been responsible for acts of sheer lunacy and the deaths of millions throughout history?

I believe that a lot of apostasy from Christ's teachings have occurred over the years that led to the deaths that you speak of. I also believe that Christ restored His original Church to the earth. Just because a lot of people in the past did terrible things in the name of Christianity doesn't mean that's what Christ wanted or wants today.

P-Worm

P.S. I'm a mechanical engineer.

[63dot]

I think if given a chance and the time, minor religions would have a body count as large as Islam or Christianity. Much has been done in the name of religion which is more political, and not really religious at all. Take Belfast and look at the roots of the violence there over history. I don't see any strong evidence that religion was the "key" issue there. Occupation, invasion, violence in the name of revenge, and political/monetary power are the culprits, as is almost always the case.

[steve knight]

all you have to believe in is that Christ died for your sins and you accept him or god or both as your savior I guess.
people believe because it gives them security to think they are loved and watched over and will go to heaven. someone open minded can never really be deeply religious. since religion requires that you believe and not think about it. think too much and it all starts to fall apart.
there is always some justification of evil and war can be accused of just doing it because you want power.

[Shivetya]

Trolls ftl.

[Bobdude161]

I believe that a lot of apostasy from Christ's teachings have occurred over the years that led to the deaths that you speak of. I also believe that Christ restored His original Church to the earth. Just because a lot of people in the past did terrible things in the name of Christianity doesn't mean that's what Christ wanted or wants today.

P-Worm

P.S. I'm a mechanical engineer.

+1337

Sounds like your girlfriend is agnostic more than anything. Yes, she was born and raised in a Christian family and yes she does believe in a god, but that in no way makes a Christian. To simply believe is nothing. To live it is something else.

[P-Worm]

someone open minded can never really be deeply religious. since religion requires that you believe and not think about it. think too much and it all starts to fall apart.

I don't believe this. In the church I belong to, we believe that we need to personally examine everything we come across, study it and then to pray in hopes of getting a personal witness as to whether it is truthful or not. To me, nearly every belief in the religion I belong to makes not only logical sense, but makes sense in the realm of science and physics.

P-Worm

[Rodimus Prime]

someone open minded can never really be deeply religious. since religion requires that you believe and not think about it. think too much and it all starts to fall apart.
r.


I do not agree with this. You can be very open minded and very deeply religions. I have friends who are that way. if anything you believing that way is very closed minded and not open minded at all.

[63dot]

I don't believe this. In the church I belong to, we believe that we need to personally examine everything we come across, study it and then to pray in hopes of getting a personal witness as to whether it is truthful or not. To me, nearly every belief in the religion I belong to makes not only logical sense, but makes sense in the realm of science and physics.

P-Worm

If there is something that clearly defies physics or just plain old experience, be open minded about it. Looking at what Einstein proved that time is relative and basically an illusion goes far into explaining how Christ claimed he could exist in the past, present, and future concurrently. Under a Newtonian model of the universe, which most people not familiar with physics will attest to, what Christ claimed was impossible. But advanced physics students do know that time itself is relative and a part of the bendable fabric of space time. One of the big pet peeves of physics legend Richard Feynman was that the big ideas and truth as we know it was not taught to physics students in their early years in school. They would have to be taught that Newton was it, master his model, and then only later find out parts of it were not true due to findings of Einstein and later physicists and mathematicians.

In a model where time is nothing more than a man made construct, much of what was in the bible which made no sense does. How does somebody live 800+ years? How does, like mentioned above, Christ exist in different dimensions of time? How can the earth be billions of years old but only casually referred to as an entity that at most, can cover a 6,000 year history? Why does God perceive a huge amount of time as just a flash or happening all at once?

Also what about a spiritual realm where matter does not exist? Anyway, before the big bang, all that empty space out there was not matter. And now that we know that virtually all matter is empty space itself, it's not too hard to imagine a spiritual realm that does not have to follow the rules of the matter we live and experience everyday.

Until recently, Einsteinian physics alluded to the fact that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. However, it's accepted today that during the big bang, for there to be enough energy to make a tiny piece of matter the size of an atom explode and expand into all the known galaxies, the explosion itself would have to travel faster than the speed of light. That much energy, within it's context of a big bang, would be needed to fuse the building blocks of hydrogen and helium into the periodic table today. This nearly impossible happening of anything traveling faster than the speed of light, or now realizing that time simply does not exist outside of a man made construct, goes a long way as circumstantial evidence of intelligent creation.

I saw Ben Stein's "Expelled" and while I disagree with his conservative politics, he made an almost bulletproof argument for intelligent design. He's just a lawyer with some scientific knowledge, and those top scientists who did not believe in intelligent design could not come up with a suitable answer, or even approach, as to why there is no God.

Physics is a work in progress, and the few parts of the bible that don't mesh with what we understand in the universe, will eventually be discovered. There is nothing supernatural imho, we are all just events and creations from a single source I call God. I don't have to be a physicist to believe just because the physicists have not proved or disproved every disputable happening in the bible. I won't live long enough to see that happen, so until then I remain a Christian. As for denomination, that's a person's choice and another thread.

[arkitect]

She thinks for herself and forms her own opinions on practically everything. Anything illogical about the christian religion, she abandons.

So… what does she have left?
;)

[63dot]

Interesting dream experiments, as outlined in a book I read by Diane Hennacy Powell, MD, went into how a person who had a dream would recall the major facts of a dream, and what minor facts they could remember. They would weave these facts into a story as they experienced them and this could fill out a one hour, or longer, script. But the equipment hooked up to the brain of that person dreaming would only show that they were dreaming for a few minutes at most.

In the dream state, a person can experience a massive amount of events with many, many characters who can be explained with excruciating detail, and have those characters go through many interactions and events in just a few minutes. Clearly time can be very different in a person's dream state. It's more evidence showing that time is relative. Further experiments like this, and in the large spectrum of physics will show that over and over, time is just an illusion us frail minded humans had to come up with to deal with the universe.

What a mind blower it must have been 100 years ago when time was shown, indisputably, to be influenced by gravity, or great velocities and not be a constant that can be relied on.

[djellison]

So… what does she have left?
;)

WEll - that was my immediate thoguht. Religion itself, is fundamentally illogical. If you remove all illogical things from religion, you're left with 4/5ths of 9/10ths of f-all.

[Macaddicttt]

WEll - that was my immediate thoguht. Religion itself, is fundamentally illogical. If you remove all illogical things from religion, you're left with 4/5ths of 9/10ths of f-all.

Logic is merely deducing a conclusion from something else. Once you have the starting point "there is a God" then religion flows completely logically from it. Sure that requires belief, but belief itself is not inherently illogical.

Science, for example, uses logic to deduce conclusions and formulas and all that from observable evidence. There is no evidence to show that these scientific laws are immutable, but we treat them as such because it is useful to believe that they are. The inclusion of belief does not make science illogical.

Similarly, if religion is useful for someone to gain meaning to his life and to live productively in society, it is not illogical to believe in God. All religion can then logically flow from that belief.

Belief itself is not inherently illogical, and therefore religion is not "fundamentally illogical."

[Tomorrow]

It's amazing that i'm even dating her. I'm the type of person who would write people off for being christian, but this girl is a real thinker. She thinks for herself and forms her own opinions on practically everything. Anything illogical about the christian religion, she abandons.

<snip>

What is the deal with christianity? Why do honest, loving, wonderful people identify themselves with a group that has been responsible for acts of sheer lunacy and the deaths of millions throughout history?

You speak as though you think all Christians are mindless sheep - or warmongering barbarians. I can't tell which.

Either way, your generalization is way off. I'm a Christian, and I know not to take things too literally and to think for myself.

Don't be so surprised; there's quite a few of us.

someone open minded can never really be deeply religious. since religion requires that you believe and not think about it.

I love your premise - so Christians are the ones who are closed-minded, but then you're closed-minded enough to make that statement? Oh, the irony.

Like I said, believing something and thinking about it aren't mutually exclusive. I just don't take everything so literally.

[djellison]

Once you have the starting point "there is a God"

There is no logical justification for that.

Religion is not logical. You can justify it which ever way you choose, but it is NOT logical. Science evolves. If something knew is discovered or understood or measured or calculated, then the theories are improved and adapted to improve out understanding of the natural world. That is logical.

Blind faith is not.

[MegaMillions]

WEll - that was my immediate thoguht. Religion itself, is fundamentally illogical. If you remove all illogical things from religion, you're left with 4/5ths of 9/10ths of f-all.

That was my thought as well. I asked her what exactly makes her a christian at this point, and she said "I don't know."

She definitely falls into the category of "thinking too much so it all starts to fall apart."

[Iscariot]

Sure that requires belief, but belief itself is not inherently illogical.

Belief by itself is not inherently illogical. Belief without evidence is. Additionally, God fails many litmus tests of logic, including Occam's Razor; God necessarily complicates all logical solutions by adding a step.
There is no evidence to show that these scientific laws are immutable, but we treat them as such because it is useful to believe that they are. The inclusion of belief does not make science illogical.

No true scientist believes that scientific laws are immutable. A perfect example is when Einstein's theory of gravity replaced Newton's. Nothing in science is immutable, and science is a self-correcting system. There have been numerous scientific upheavals and revolutions that have fundamentally altered the core of science.
Similarly, if religion is useful for someone to gain meaning to his life and to live productively in society, it is not illogical to believe in God. All religion can then logically flow from that belief.

That's not correct. Something does not have to be logical to be useful or good. You are confusing "religion is illogical" with "religion is bad". Even someone as cynically anti-theistic as myself knows that there is plenty of good to be had from illogical ideas and concepts, including religion. It is not the illogical nature of religion that would rob it of value anymore than the illogical nature of love and relationships rob them of value.
Belief itself is not inherently illogical, and therefore religion is not "fundamentally illogical."

Yeah, it is. And furthermore, why would you want to undercut the value of faith by trying to conform it to constraints in which it does not fit?

[Macaddicttt]

There is no logical justification for that.

I just gave you a logical justification for it. I think you're confusing logic with empiricism. They are not the same.

Religion is not logical. You can justify it which ever way you choose, but it is NOT logical. Science evolves. If something knew is discovered or understood or measured or calculated, then the theories are improved and adapted to improve out understanding of the natural world. That is logical.

And you deny that theology evolves? And religion of course would reject anything that an observation proves false. In fact it has many times.

Blind faith is not.

I agree. But not all religious faith is "blind."

An interesting read that serves as a good starting point for exploration of the topic: Link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_logic_empirical%3F)

[Iscariot]

And you deny that theology evolves? And religion of course would reject anything that an observation proves false. In fact it has many times.

That would depend on the religion. Some do not evolve or reject observed falsehoods (creationism and young earth creationism come to mind) whereas others can be surprisingly forward-thinking. I think both sides of this debate need to be careful not to generalize.

[Macaddicttt]

That would depend on the religion. Some do not evolve or reject observed falsehoods (creationism and young earth creationism come to mind) whereas others can be surprisingly forward-thinking. I think both sides of this debate need to be careful not to generalize.

Good point. Duly noted. I should caveat my posts with, yes, of course some people (a lot actually...) are extremely illogical concerning religion. But that is not necessarily a product of religion. In most cases it is probably a product that particular person.

[.Andy]

Good point. Duly noted. I should caveat my posts with, yes, of course some people (a lot actually...) are extremely illogical concerning religion. But that is not necessarily a product of religion. In most cases it is probably a product that particular person.
And the corollary is that religion (such as christianity), by it's essential "faith", is fundamentally illogical.

[Macaddicttt]

And the corollary is that religion (such as christianity), by it's essential "faith", is fundamentally illogical.

Did you read the thread? We've moved past "Christianity is illogical because it includes faith" and into "Is faith illogical?" If we all agreed faith was illogical, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your comment adds nothing.

It seems to me that there are just as many people who are illogical about their faith in science and empiricism as people who are illogical about their faith in Christianity. It seems whole swaths of people are completely unaware of the field of metaphysics. Any discussion about whether religion is logical has to enter that territory.

EDIT: And not to mention the idea that the existence of God can be proved logically. See Thomas Aquinas.

[Rt&Dzine]

But because she's christian, I just keep thinking about the whole religious situation in the world, and I don't understand why everybody is christian. Why is a massive portion of America christians? Why did this happen? At the end of Religious, Bill Maher points out that if you belonged to any sort of social group that was involved in as much destruction, stupidity and lunacy as religion has been, you would resign in protest.

What is the deal with christianity? Why do honest, loving, wonderful people identify themselves with a group that has been responsible for acts of sheer lunacy and the deaths of millions throughout history?

Many people need religion. It can help you get through the difficulties in life and give you a purpose for this absurd existence. And people who are raised with religion often can't shake that view of the world. You can debate it 'til you're blue in the face, but it will always come down to a leap of faith.

Christianity in particular is very popular. I never understood why so others will have to explain it. Maybe because it doesn't ask a lot of you. In some of the sects, it's a simple as accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior with no need to alter your behavior.

Some polls suggest that Christianity is losing its ground and that Islam may overtake it. Time will tell.

[.Andy]

Did you read the thread? We've moved past "Christianity is illogical because it includes faith" and into "Is faith illogical?" If we all agreed faith was illogical, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your comment adds nothing.
I've most certainly read the thread. however if you're going to attack people who are against religion as being "illogical" it should be no problem to point out the extension of that statement.

It seems to me that there are just as many people who are illogical about their faith in science and empiricism
The "science is a faith argument" and therefore equivalent to religion is false.

EDIT: And not to mention the idea that the existence of God can be proved logically. See Thomas Aquinas.
There couldn't be a better illustration of the illogical religion argument.

[Macaddicttt]

I've most certainly read the thread. however if you're going to attack people who are against religion as being "illogical" it should be no problem to point out the extension of that statement.

What? Because I disagree with you, you merely point out that you disagree with me? I gave at least some explanation of my beliefs. Maybe you'd care to give some explanation for your beliefs?

There couldn't be a better illustration of the illogical religion argument.

Have you ever read Aquinas?

I do not believe you know what the words "logical" and "illogical" mean or even what logic is if you believe making a statement like that a) advances the discussion at all or b) is a logical statement; it sounds more illogical than anything else since all it says is, "I disagree with you and your interpretation of metaphysics, and I refuse to discuss the differences, but rather just say that you're illogical without any need of explanation because my ideas are so superior to yours."

If you're so sure of your beliefs that you're not willing to question them or discuss them, I suggest you not post.

[niuniu]

Stupidity is inherent to humans. They can spend their lives educating in one field, but that doesn't make them clever beings going by standards of logic and perception. Hence why there are a lot of freaks running around worshiping things like Gods in cults like Christianity

[imac/cheese]

I think that there is definitely some illogical aspects to Christianity. Paul even mentions the foolishness of Christ crucified in his letter to the Corinthians (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20CORINTHIANS%20%20%201:18-25).

[Macaddicttt]

I think that there is definitely some illogical aspects to Christianity. Paul even mentions the foolishness of Christ crucified in his letter to the Corinthians (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20CORINTHIANS%20%20%201:18-25).

Paul definitely is not saying in that passage that Christ being crucified was foolish. He was merely saying that to those who don't accept God it seems foolish. That does not make it illogical. Logic is one thing being as a result of something else. If you start in a certain place, Christianity is completely logical. And of course wherever you chose to start is entirely a matter of belief, whether you follow the religion of empiricism or Christianity or any other logic-based system of beliefs.

[djellison]

And not to mention the idea that the existence of God can be proved logically. See Thomas Aquinas.

You owe me a new keyboard. This one's covered in tea.

You can NOT be serious. 4 piles of utter nonsense plus creationism. That's your 'proof'.

No - seriously - about my keyboard.

[Macaddicttt]

You can NOT be serious. 4 piles of utter nonsense plus creationism. That's your 'proof'.

I did not say it was my proof or even good proof. I offered no judgment of Aquinas or his writings. I was merely showing that there are schools of thought that believe the existence of God can logically be proved, the first of which was Aquinas.

And by the way, your summary shows a complete lack of knowledge of Aquinas beyond the Wikipedia article-level. Well, actually the Wikipedia article knows at least enough to say that creationism is a misunderstanding of his fifth way and that he delves far more into metaphysics in writings beyond Summa Theologica.

And by the way, any logic requires the assumption made in the third way. Whether you call the "one self-sufficient, efficient cause" God or something else does not negate the necessity of its assumption for any logic to work at all.

[Iscariot]

But that is not necessarily a product of religion. In most cases it is probably a product that particular person.

I agree with the former, but not necessarily the latter. I would wager that the problem more stems from scientific and mathematical illiteracy, which is a product of community and education.
I did not say it was my proof or even good proof. I offered no judgment of Aquinas or his writings. I was merely showing that there are schools of thought that believe the existence of God can logically be proved, the first of which was Aquinas.

But they're wrong. The fact that there are schools of thought that think God can be logically proven is not evidence that God can be logically proven. If you want to convince us of logic in faith, you're going to have to present a more compelling case than Aquinas.

[Macaddicttt]

But they're wrong. The fact that there are schools of thought that think God can be logically proven is not evidence that God can be logically proven. If you want to convince us of logic in faith, you're going to have to present a more compelling case than Aquinas.

And just saying they're wrong is not proof that they are. I admit that the mere existence of schools of thought does not prove that God can be logically proven, but that was not my point.

My point is that logic is not some unifying principle that everyone can agree to. There are plenty of logical people who disagree on the results of applying logic. Heck, the field of philosophy is practically by definition a group of people applying logic to life and coming to different conclusions than each other.

You cannot appeal to this nonexistent absolute logic and call something illogical just because it does not agree with your beliefs about truth and reality. Even claiming that logic is a) good and b) can be applied to religion to prove it to be illogical shows a tremendous amount of belief and relies on a huge background of metaphysical thought.

To say that religion is illogical because it includes belief makes no sense. Valuing logic in the first place requires a tremendous amount of belief in absolutes, which results in a healthy dose of irony.

Arguing about whether religion is logical or illogical relies on a huge background of metaphysics and definitions of truth and reality. But here people are denying it, coming to the table with completely different beliefs and assumptions about truth and reality and condemning each other as illogical. It makes no sense.

We come to this forum with completely different views on truth and reality, yet that aspect is consistently ignored while those who believe in empiricism (illogically denying all the while that they have any belief in anything but what can be categorically proved beyond any doubt) feel like they are in a position to condemn a different set of beliefs as illogical. I'm not sure why people do it, but it serves no purpose.

[Iscariot]

And just saying they're wrong is not proof that they are.

You admitted the weakness in your argument yourself; why would I pursue it further?
My point is that logic is not some unifying principle that everyone can agree to. There are plenty of logical people who disagree on the results of applying logic. Heck, the field of philosophy is practically by definition a group of people applying logic to life and coming to different conclusions than each other.

Arguing about whether religion is logical or illogical relies on a huge background of metaphysics and definitions of truth and reality. But here people are denying it, coming to the table with completely different beliefs and assumptions about truth and reality and condemning each other as illogical. It makes no sense.


What you are attempting to argue here is that logic is so nebulous that something can be both illogical or logical — or that it is impossible to ascertain how logical something is. Nobody believes logic is "absolute," but it is not so malleable that something becomes logical or illogical based on your particular point of view. There are core tenets of logic that while not immutable stand thus based on our current understanding, and faith as illogical is one of those such things. The kind of metaphysical backflips you are doing here in an attempt to justify something as logical that by it's own admission isn't simply isn't going to fly with me.
We come to this forum with completely different views on truth and reality, yet that aspect is consistently ignored while those who believe in empiricism (illogically denying all the while that they have any belief in anything but what can be categorically proved beyond any doubt) feel like they are in a position to condemn a different set of beliefs as illogical. I'm not sure why people do it, but it serves no purpose.

This is your problem with perception, not mine. You have come from the position that illogical = bad or worthy of condemnation, which I have not. Your attempts to justify your faith on the grounds that other people have set for themselves is not only a pointless exercise, it also denigrates the inherent value of faith.

[djellison]

beyond the Wikipedia article-level..

Funny - I didn't even look at the Wikipedia article.

If faith were logical - it wouldn't be faith, it would be common sense.

You COULD say something like "I know it's not logical, I know it's not proven, I know it doesn't make sense, but I still believe in it".

At least then I'd have a little bit of respect for you for being honest.

[Badandy]

If faith were logical - it wouldn't be faith, it would be common sense.


Precisely. If faith were logical (faith, by the way, is sustained belief in the absence of evidence) the same number of people who know that four quarters comprise a dollar would believe in a religion.


Belief by itself is not inherently illogical. Belief without evidence is. Additionally, God fails many litmus tests of logic, including Occam's Razor; God necessarily complicates all logical solutions by adding a step.

I think this is right.

The problem you're having, Macaddicttt, is that you're saying that a religion is logical...once you assume an unsubstantiated idea.


Valuing logic in the first place requires a tremendous amount of belief in absolutes, which results in a healthy dose of irony.

Please elaborate. Since logic dictates that the human body doesn't respond well to rapid, negative acceleration, is there something I'm overlooking when I say that jumping off a rock cliff onto hard ground would be detrimental to my health? Where are these gaps of logic (and "belief in absolutes") you speak of? Your metaphysical maze, while mildly entertaining, seems rather fruitless. I'll make sure to let my religious friends know that a thorough education in metaphysics is needed nowadays in attempting to defend their beliefs.

[Heilage]

First of all, religion cannot be "proven" by any scientific or empiric means. That would defeat religion's purpose.

Second, why is people being religious a problem? As long as they don't start being idiots, with trying to convert people and hating homosexuals and whatnot, what the hell is the problem?

Personally, I'm not religious, nor am I atheistic. I refuse to take a standpoint in a matter that can neither be proven or disproven in any way. If there is a God, I'm sure he loves me and he'll buy me beers in heaven.

[djellison]

Second, why is people being religious a problem? As long as they don't start being idiots, with trying to convert people and hating homosexuals and whatnot, what the hell is the problem?.

That's the problem. 'as long as they don't'. Some do. Banning of marriage in California? Religion. WTC? Religion. Teaching our kids nonsense instead of science? Religion. People dying because they think prayer works? Religion. Segregation and humiliation of women in burkahs etc? Religion.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece
“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies"

The very concept of a religion... here are our rules - follow them or you're going to hell. They're mutually exclusive with one another. And some of those rules are morally reprehensible.

Religion is a crutch. It's a firewall. It's a barrier between humanity and reality. It's damaging to civilisation, intelligence, progress and genuine tolerance rather than the lip-service that religious types give to that concept...when they still believe anyone not on 'their' side is going to hell.

Would you watch a film with a pillowcase over your head? It might be a scarey movie, but trust me - you'll enjoy it more if you take the pillowcase off.

Religion is a problem. Individuals who practice it may not be - but taken as a whole, it is.

[Heilage]

All the things you mention are related to the problem with mixing politics and religion, not that people believe in God.

But then again, what other people believe isn't really my business, unless they impose on my life. So I naturally understand the beef that a lot of people have with religion, but I think you should focus on the people making your life miserable. I don't think crazy religious fanatics would be any less fanatic and stupid even if you subtract the religion.

[P-Worm]

If faith were logical - it wouldn't be faith, it would be common sense.

So you're basically saying that for something to not be faith based, that it has to be common sense or, in other words, everyone believes it? That's the whole point that Macaddict was trying to convey, that logic breaks down when something contrary comes along. The Einstein example is an excellent one. Before Einstein came a long, if you said "Time is relative" all the scientists (and the world with them) would scoff and say, "Newton established how this stuff worked a long time ago."

And that's the problem that I have with saying that believing in God doesn't make sense. It's basically like saying "Because we haven't seen it, it must not be there." Do you believe we'll find new creatures in the deep ocean we haven't explored fully? Do you believe there may be life on other planets? If you believe either of those things, I can't see how you can think believing in God makes no sense.

Everyone points out that there's no proof there's a God. They also fail to mention that there is no proof that there isn't one.

P-Worm

[imac/cheese]

Paul definitely is not saying in that passage that Christ being crucified was foolish. He was merely saying that to those who don't accept God it seems foolish. That does not make it illogical. Logic is one thing being as a result of something else. If you start in a certain place, Christianity is completely logical. And of course wherever you chose to start is entirely a matter of belief, whether you follow the religion of empiricism or Christianity or any other logic-based system of beliefs.

Paul is saying that Christ being crucified for the sins of everyone is foolishness to those who do not believe. From their perspective, believing in god and Christ's crucifiction is completely illogical. When one believes, something about that changes and it no longer seems illogical. Trying to get a non-believer to see the "logic" of religion is rarely going to do anything. Until that person believes, they will never see the logic in believing.

Second, why is people being religious a problem? As long as they don't start being idiots, with trying to convert people and hating homosexuals and whatnot, what the hell is the problem?

I agree that hating homosexuals is definitely a problem, but why is someone an idiot if they try to convert people?

[Heilage]

I agree that hating homosexuals is definitely a problem, but why is someone an idiot if they try to convert people?

Because no one should tell others how to live and what to believe in. It's a personal matter.

[djellison]

They also fail to mention that there is no proof that there isn't one.

There is a person on another forum I frequent, and I'll get this slightly wrong - but his signature is basically "I say there is a giant unicorn at the end of my garden. Prove me wrong". We can't see his garden. Therefore, we have no proof there isn't such a being at the end of his garden....

What I'm saying is I'd like you to meet my friend, he's called burden of proof. I'm not the one making the claim that there is a God. THAT is the claim for which evidence must be provided.

Furthermore, I would suggest there is plenty of evidence to suggest there either isn't one - or he is the very definition of incompetence and evil. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god-toc.htm covers many of the common things that crop up. i.e. There is either no God, or no God worthy or worship. You can take your pick.

[Zombie Acorn]

All the things you mention are related to the problem with mixing politics and religion, not that people believe in God.

But then again, what other people believe isn't really my business, unless they impose on my life. So I naturally understand the beef that a lot of people have with religion, but I think you should focus on the people making your life miserable. I don't think crazy religious fanatics would be any less fanatic and stupid even if you subtract the religion.

It gives them a banner to rally under, and a justification for their actions, whether or not they are true to their religion is irrelevant. When you can say "God hates fags" its not you hating them, its simply following the supreme leader. Cowardice if you ask me.

[iBlue]

...

And that's the problem that I have with saying that believing in God doesn't make sense. It's basically like saying "Because we haven't seen it, it must not be there." Do you believe we'll find new creatures in the deep ocean we haven't explored fully? Do you believe there may be life on other planets? If you believe either of those things, I can't see how you can think believing in God makes no sense.

Everyone points out that there's no proof there's a God. They also fail to mention that there is no proof that there isn't one.

P-Worm

Yes because those things are probable from a logical standpoint but I find the likelyhood of a god (of whatever various religion) highly improbable.

P.S.

http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/macros/ReligiousLogic.jpg

[imac/cheese]

Because no one should tell others how to live and what to believe in. It's a personal matter.

Unless you are talking about forcing people to follow a certain religion, trying to convert people is not telling others how to live. If they convert, it is because they wanted to.

[djellison]

trying to convert

is brainwashing.

[P-Worm]

Furthermore, I would suggest there is plenty of evidence to suggest there either isn't one - or he is the very definition of incompetence and evil. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god-toc.htm covers many of the common things that crop up. i.e. There is either no God, or no God worthy or worship. You can take your pick.

I don't have the time right now to read through that whole website (I need to get off to school today), but from what I have glanced over, it seems pretty ridiculous. The question, "Why won't God heal amputees?" feels like, "Why won't God give me a million dollars?"

P-Worm

[djellison]

Perfect - just perfect

http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/macros/ReligiousLogic.jpg

[Macaddicttt]

There is a person on another forum I frequent, and I'll get this slightly wrong - but his signature is basically "I say there is a giant unicorn at the end of my garden. Prove me wrong". We can't see his garden. Therefore, we have no proof there isn't such a being at the end of his garden....

What I'm saying is I'd like you to meet my friend, he's called burden of proof. I'm not the one making the claim that there is a God. THAT is the claim for which evidence must be provided.

And my point is that there is no such thing as a burden of proof for certain things, e.g. the meaning of life, morality, etc. Can you prove that murder is wrong using only observed data? No, you can't. You have to assign value to things in a way that is completely separate from empiricism.

If you say, murder is wrong because it affects (i.e. ends) another person's life, then you have to give value to human life. What is the empirical evidence for human life having value? The fact that you enjoy yours? What about someone who doesn't enjoy life? Is he then empirically allowed to say that human life is worthless?

A unicorn is a thing (and so is the baseball in iBlue's example). God is not a "thing." God can never be observed because he's not some bearded old guy in the clouds. Truth can never be observed, but instead we have to speculate about it and come to rationally plausible conclusions. Religion is not necessarily irrational or illogical. And in fact, just because two rational, logical people come to different conclusions about religion does not make either person irrational or illogical.

There are core tenets of logic that while not immutable stand thus based on our current understanding, and faith as illogical is one of those such things. The kind of metaphysical backflips you are doing here in an attempt to justify something as logical that by it's own admission isn't simply isn't going to fly with me.

I do not believe that you understand what the word "logic" means. Where is it written that faith is by definition illogical? That makes no sense whatsoever. What are these "core tenets?" The core tenets are, "If A, then B." At some point you have to assume A. Does that make logic by your definition illogical?

As I've said before, logic is not the same thing as empiricism and treating it as such makes no sense.

Precisely. If faith were logical (faith, by the way, is sustained belief in the absence of evidence) the same number of people who know that four quarters comprise a dollar would believe in a religion.

And I do not believe that you understand what "logic" means either. Kant and Hume both used logic to discuss their philosophies. Which one's right? By your idea of what logic is, everyone who uses logic should agree on everything. We both know that is not the case.

Your four quarters example has the same flaw as the unicorn and baseball example. Actually, it has a further flaw, since mathematical logic is not the same thing as philosophical logic. Religion and philosophy deal with the immaterial, which by definition cannot be observed. Your beliefs about life, by your understanding of logic, would be as illogical as any religion. But that is not what logic is, and in fact, beliefs (including religious beliefs) can be completely logical.

The problem you're having, Macaddicttt, is that you're saying that a religion is logical...once you assume an unsubstantiated idea.

Please elaborate. Since logic dictates that the human body doesn't respond well to rapid, negative acceleration, is there something I'm overlooking when I say that jumping off a rock cliff onto hard ground would be detrimental to my health? Where are these gaps of logic (and "belief in absolutes") you speak of? Your metaphysical maze, while mildly entertaining, seems rather fruitless. I'll make sure to let my religious friends know that a thorough education in metaphysics is needed nowadays in attempting to defend their beliefs.

But you assume unsubstantiated ideas everyday. Let's use your jumping off a cliff example. Logic says that if gravity is consistent and acts according to that which I've observed before, jumping off a cliff would be detrimental to my health. It is therefore reasonable and logical to believe that jumping off a cliff would be detrimental to your health.

But you've already made a huge assumption: "if gravity is consistent." There is no evidence to prove that gravity will always work the same way. In fact there is proof that gravity is mutable. Now, of course there is no evidence of jumping off a cliff not resulting in hitting the floor below, resulting in injury, so it would be illogical to expect a different result. But you've made a huge assumption, one for which there is no evidence in the universe, one for which there can never be any evidence in the universe. Logic demands assumptions (rational ones), and requires belief in some sort of starting place.

But religion doesn't deal with "what happens if I jump off a cliff." That's for science and empiricism, scientific/mathematical logic. Religion deals with, "Is is moral for me to jump off a cliff?" or "Is it moral to push someone else off a cliff?"

So some more logic: If human life has value and pushing someone off a cliff has none (meaning that someone is not going to murder you or something like that), pushing that person off a cliff is immoral. This is a completely logical conclusion. But, like all logic, it requires assumptions that cannot be proven.

EDIT:
Your attempts to justify your faith on the grounds that other people have set for themselves is not only a pointless exercise, it also denigrates the inherent value of faith.

I am not attempting to justify my faith of the the grounds the other people have set. These are my own grounds.

You COULD say something like "I know it's not logical, I know it's not proven, I know it doesn't make sense, but I still believe in it".

At least then I'd have a little bit of respect for you for being honest.

To say to myself "faith doesn't make sense" would be dishonest. I know that faith is not proven or provable, and that I believe in it, and that I have made reasonable, logical assumptions about life in coming to the rational decision to believe.

[maflynn]

So, I recently started dating a christian girl who identifies herself as christian because of her upbringing and her family, but she is by no means fanatically religious in any way. Aside from believing in God, she doesn't believe any of the christian stories that don't make sense. She accepts anything that has been scientifically proven.

As the other poster mentioned, she less of a Christian or more of an agnostic. Specifically speaking a Christian is one who accepts the death, burial and resurrection of Christ of their sins. This girl, is more of a "cultural" christian. Attending church because she has too. Sitting in church does not make her a Christian, no more then if I sat in a garage, I'd be a car.

As for her disbeliefs in the Bible, once you start throwing out parts of it, because they seem too fantastic, where you stop. Creationism?, The flood? the parting of the red sea? Virgin birth? The resurrection? Pretty soon there's nothing in the Bible. Believing in the unseen is what's called for and that term is called faith. She chooses to disbelieve many facets of the Bible and that's her business but from the sounds of it, she's rejecting the tenets of Christianity even though she embraces the term.

[Zombie Acorn]

As the other poster mentioned, she less of a Christian or more of an agnostic. Specifically speaking a Christian is one who accepts the death, burial and resurrection of Christ of their sins. This girl, is more of a "cultural" christian. Attending church because she has too. Sitting in church does not make her a Christian, no more then if I sat in a garage, I'd be a car.

As for her disbeliefs in the Bible, once you start throwing out parts of it, because they seem too fantastic, where you stop. Creationism?, The flood? the parting of the red sea? Virgin birth? The resurrection? Pretty soon there's nothing in the Bible. Believing in the unseen is what's called for and that term is called faith. She chooses to disbelieve many facets of the Bible and that's her business but from the sounds of it, she's rejecting the tenets of Christianity even though she embraces the term.

That is what happens when you are forced into belief for fear of being ostracized. I do not believe we would have near as many Christians (in name) in this country if it was not looked down upon to be agnostic/atheist.

[djellison]

I have made reasonable, logical assumptions about life in coming to the rational decision to believe.

Go on then - explain the logical assumptions made to justify a belief in a 'god'.

[skunk]

Sitting in church does not make her a Christian, no more then if I sat in a garage, I'd be a car.I find this line very appealing. :)

[Macaddicttt]

Go on then - explain the logical assumptions made to justify a belief in a 'god'.

I think I phrased that poorly. I didn't mean "logical assumptions," that makes no sense; it's a contradiction. I meant reasonable assumptions from which logic can flow.

The reasonable assumption is that it matters to the universe what I do. That type of universe is what people call God.

[skunk]

The reasonable assumption is that it matters to the universe what I do.What is reasonable about such an assumption? It sounds more like presumption to me. Why on earth should it make any difference whatever what you do in the grander scheme of things - unless you vaporise a significant part of the universe? Even then, such events are happening all the time anyway...

[imac/cheese]

is brainwashing.

Is attempted conversion always brainwashing or only when it involves religion?

[Macaddicttt]

What is reasonable about such an assumption? It sounds more like presumption to me. Why on earth should it make any difference whatever what you do in the grander scheme of things - unless you vaporise a significant part of the universe? Even then, such events are happening all the time anyway...

Well, you (and just about everyone on the earth) act as if it matters what you do in life. Why is that an unreasonable assumption?

[skunk]

Well, you (and just about everyone on the earth) act as if it matters what you do in life. Why is that an unreasonable assumption?Reason and ego are not the same.

[Macaddicttt]

Reason and ego are not the same.

I never suggested it was. And aren't you the person who said that things only had value if we gave them value? That sounds more egotistical to me.

I also fail to see how, "Hey, it matters what I do to other people, so I should live a moral life," is an egotistical position.

[skunk]

It may matter to other people, and to oneself, but you asserted that it mattered to "the universe". We are so insignificant a part of the universe that this is an unreasonable proposition.

[Macaddicttt]

It may matter to other people, and to oneself, but you asserted that it mattered to "the universe". We are so insignificant a part of the universe that this is an unreasonable proposition.

So the universe has a threshold of caring based on size? Of course what I do won't necessarily matter to the physics of the universe (the odds of that are quite slim), but that isn't the question. The question is about whether it matters to someone or something greater than ourselves what we do.

And if we are so insignificant, than it should matter even less if I matter to someone as insignificant as me. One person dying of starvation? Why does it matter? It's just one insignificant person. A million dying in a war? Peanuts! Who are they to think they matter at all?

Really, the only reasonable solution is to believe that it matters to the universe, the unseen, unknowable, and unobservable universe.

[OutThere]

I was born, I will die. While I'm here on this earth I want to live each day without regret, enjoy the fruits of my labor, contribute positively to this world we share, savor the joy of friendship and create my own destiny as a human being. I do not wish to be condemned by others for not agreeing with their beliefs, I do not wish to be told that my actions in life will cause me eternal suffering after death, I do not wish to live in a society where the majority feel that everyone should share these beliefs and I do not wish to be judged by others for admitting that I do not go to church and do not follow any religion.

Therein lies my fundamental problem with Christianity. . .I wouldn't have a problem with it if Christians refrained from proselytizing and trying to impose their values on an entire society.

[skunk]

Of course what I do won't necessarily matter to the physics of the universe (the odds of that are quite slim), but that isn't the question. The question is about whether it matters to someone or something greater than ourselves what we do.There is no evidence to show that there is someone or something greater than ourselves, nor that, if there was, that he she or it would even be aware of our transitory existence. Ergo the assumption is not reasonable.

One person dying of starvation? Why does it matter? It's just one insignificant person. A million dying in a war? Peanuts! Who are they to think they matter at all?They do not, except insofar as each of us believes that they do. This is not reason, this is sentiment.

Really, the only reasonable solution is to believe that it matters to the universe, the unseen, unknowable, and unobservable universe.There is no problem requiring such a solution, nor is there a reasonable process by which to arrive there.

[Rt&Dzine]

As for her disbeliefs in the Bible, once you start throwing out parts of it, because they seem too fantastic, where you stop. Creationism?, The flood? the parting of the red sea? Virgin birth? The resurrection? Pretty soon there's nothing in the Bible. Believing in the unseen is what's called for and that term is called faith. She chooses to disbelieve many facets of the Bible and that's her business but from the sounds of it, she's rejecting the tenets of Christianity even though she embraces the term.

All Christians throw out parts that don't fit their needs. The interpretation of the Bible is so varied. Some sects don't take the stories literally. Some do. If she considers herself a Christian, she's no less a Christian than anyone else who claims to be.

[spaceboots06]

Religion is like art; all you have to be is creative.

[.Andy]

Religion is like art; all you have to be is creative.
Unfortunately your creative repertoire is extremely limited when your raw materials amount to nothing more than dried macaroni, glitter, and glue.

[djellison]

Unfortunately your creative repertoire is extremely limited when your raw materials amount to nothing more than dried macaroni, glitter, and glue.

You've seen my pasta safari park I take it.

it really was quite dreadful.

[djellison]

I was born, I will die. While I'm here on this earth I want to live each day without regret, enjoy the fruits of my labor, contribute positively to this world we share, savor the joy of friendship and create my own destiny as a human being. I do not wish to be condemned by others for not agreeing with their beliefs, I do not wish to be told that my actions in life will cause me eternal suffering after death, I do not wish to live in a society where the majority feel that everyone should share these beliefs and I do not wish to be judged by others for admitting that I do not go to church and do not follow any religion.

Therein lies my fundamental problem with Christianity. . .I wouldn't have a problem with it if Christians refrained from proselytizing and trying to impose their values on an entire society.

For anyone keeping count - this is what I consider the right answer.

[maflynn]

All Christians throw out parts that don't fit their needs. The interpretation of the Bible is so varied
Actually it isn't very varied. This argument is typically used by people who want to justify their desire not to believe in the Bible. Its pretty cut and dry.

While there are a number of different translations, the majority of them are extremely close in translations and the others that don't agree, seem to fail the general academic principles and work of the original texts.

The denominations, I have belonged too, take the Bible literally and completely. We don't throw out difficult passages because we may not understand them or want to justify our own lives and the passages condemns that.

I have no problem if the girl wants call herself a Christian. I was merely pointing out the definition of a Christian and it appears that she's more closely aligned to agnostics then Christians. We all will go before God to be judged. Some of will have our sins paid for by Christ, others will have pay for their own sins because they rejected his offer of salvation.

I have too much trouble dealing with my life, to worry about whether someone who calls herself a Christian but decides not to believe what the Bible has to say.

[steve knight]

it has only been since a out the 1930's that the bible has really become literal. but how can you read any book without interpreting it? just the act of reading is interpretation.your experience and your outlook will change it's meaning. plus it's not like your reading the original bible. I guess they think the bible was written in English.

[iObama]

Because no one should tell others how to live and what to believe in. It's a personal matter.

I think you misunderstand the concept of sharing your faith with people. Some people beat people over the head with a Bible and say "repent!" How would that ever work? It wouldn't!

Sharing your faith by telling a friend what you believe in and why isn't offensive, and Christians SHOULD be doing that.

[.Andy]

Actually it isn't very varied. This argument is typically used by people who want to justify their desire not to believe in the Bible. Its pretty cut and dry.
This is good to hear. I'll be sure to get my wife to cut off my son's foreskin and rub it on my feet if god ever wants to kill me.

[DoFoT9]

its all very confusing to understand. i am not a religious person at all - i have nothing wrong with it at all. the problem i have is when the religious people try to "convert" you because they think you will go to Hell or what have you. im not going to get you to convert from Windoze to OSX, ill let you be because that is your choice. if you come and ask me about it then yes sure its fine to talk about it then.

im of the belief that there may be a God, if there is then great! if not then ah well it was a good concept for those that needed guidance. if there is a God i would think that he wants us to live our lives by what we consider nice, rational and reasonable. i dont think he wants us to do all these things for him etcetc..

anyway, thats just my view.

[steve knight]

I think you misunderstand the concept of sharing your faith with people. Some people beat people over the head with a Bible and say "repent!" How would that ever work? It wouldn't!

Sharing your faith by telling a friend what you believe in and why isn't offensive, and Christians SHOULD be doing that.

to you it may not be but to others it is. and I bet you would not like it if someone did the same to you. shared their Buddhist belief or their Taoist belief. so far I have found Christians love to preach but hate it when it is turned around.

[yg17]

Sharing your faith by telling a friend what you believe in and why isn't offensive, and Christians SHOULD be doing that.

If I cared about what they believed in, I'd ask.

[.Andy]

im of the belief that there may be a God, if there is then great!
Which god and why only one of them?

[DoFoT9]

If I cared about what they believed in, I'd ask.

that is my opinion too.

[DoFoT9]

Which god and why only one of them?

because having too many gods just makes it all stupid. if there was a god, he wouldnt be silly enough to make more that could overpower him

[steve knight]

all of the evil missionaries have caused to people around the world can't even be known all the cultures and lives destroyed. all in the name of God.
of course others have done this but only white people got around so much.

[yg17]

that is my opinion too.

Yup....I don't go around to my friends and say "I want to share my Atheism with you!" nor has any Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, Taoist, Muslim, Rastafarian or anyone of any other religion ever come up to me and start sharing their beliefs.

Not even the ********** Scientologists have ever done that.

[.Andy]

because having too many gods just makes it all stupid. if there was a god, he wouldnt be silly enough to make more that could overpower him
This makes perfect sense thanks.

[steve knight]

Yup....I don't go around to my friends and say "I want to share my Atheism with you!" nor has any Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, Taoist, Muslim, Rastafarian or anyone of any other religion ever come up to me and start sharing their beliefs.

Not even the ********** Scientologists have ever done that.

Scientologists do it somewhat. I have been approached by them.
but while waiting for a bus and some flake pulls up in a car and tries to convert me really is a little much.
I guess I need to wear the sign of the devil around my nect. even that would not stop them. I wonder if pepper spray would?

[DoFoT9]

Yup....I don't go around to my friends and say "I want to share my Atheism with you!" nor has any Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, Taoist, Muslim, Rastafarian or anyone of any other religion ever come up to me and start sharing their beliefs.

Not even the ********** Scientologists have ever done that.

yup totally agree. if i wanted to know i would go to church, or whatnot.

we have religious doorknockers over here, they can get very annoying.

This makes perfect sense thanks.

:D for me and you it might, im sure others will have other ideas..

[Iscariot]

Can you prove that murder is wrong using only observed data? No, you can't.
…
What is the empirical evidence for human life having value? The fact that you enjoy yours?

Yes, you can. You can observe the value of the individual to society before his murder and then conclude that the society has lost that value when he died, thus proving murder to be wrong.
What are these "core tenets?" The core tenets are, "If A, then B." At some point you have to assume A. Does that make logic by your definition illogical?

There is no point at which you have to "assume" A. Asserting that only serves to demonstrate the metaphysical backflips you are willing to partake in.
As I've said before, logic is not the same thing as empiricism and treating it as such makes no sense.

Continually repeating that I'm mistaking empiricism for logic does not make it true.
Kant and Hume both used logic to discuss their philosophies. Which one's right? By your idea of what logic is, everyone who uses logic should agree on everything. We both know that is not the case.

You keep accusing people of not "understanding" what logic is, while simultaneously referring to it's somewhat undefined nature. Do you not see a problem with claiming logic to be nebulous and then claiming not only to know what is and isn't logical, but also as having a monopoly on it's understanding? One of the core tenets of logic is consistency, a concept that you seem to be having difficulty with. It's almost like you're engaging in one giant relativist fallacy.

[Rt&Dzine]

Actually it isn't very varied. This argument is typically used by people who want to justify their desire not to believe in the Bible. Its pretty cut and dry.

While there are a number of different translations, the majority of them are extremely close in translations and the others that don't agree, seem to fail the general academic principles and work of the original texts.

The denominations, I have belonged too, take the Bible literally and completely. We don't throw out difficult passages because we may not understand them or want to justify our own lives and the passages condemns that.

I have no problem if the girl wants call herself a Christian. I was merely pointing out the definition of a Christian and it appears that she's more closely aligned to agnostics then Christians. We all will go before God to be judged. Some of will have our sins paid for by Christ, others will have pay for their own sins because they rejected his offer of salvation.

I have too much trouble dealing with my life, to worry about whether someone who calls herself a Christian but decides not to believe what the Bible has to say.

Actually it is varied. Why do you think there's so many denominations? There are the original Christians like the Greek Orthodox and the Catholics. There are the newer Christians sects like the evangelicals and the LDS. Some Christians take the Bible more literally. Some don't. No Christian that I've ever heard of takes every piece of the Bible literally. And she's not an agnostic if she believes in god. Even if it isn't your god.

[PcBgone]

Yes, you can. You can observe the value of the individual to society before his murder and then conclude that the society has lost that value when he died, thus proving murder to be wrong.


So if a bum on the street had no family, did nothing for society, what value does he have? In this situation under your pretense he would have no value thus murdering him would not be wrong.

[Macaddicttt]

There is no evidence to show that there is someone or something greater than ourselves, nor that, if there was, that he she or it would even be aware of our transitory existence. Ergo the assumption is not reasonable.

The universe is greater than ourselves. It is either personal or not. There is no evidence for either. Ergo, the assumption of either is just as reasonable as the other.

They do not, except insofar as each of us believes that they do. This is not reason, this is sentiment.

No, sentiment is not the same as reason, but that does not make it unreasonable to base logic and reason off of sentiment.

There is no problem requiring such a solution, nor is there a reasonable process by which to arrive there.

I find your nihilistic view of the universe to be so depressing that I could not possibly live knowing that nothing I did had any real meaning to anyone or anything of any importance, that it did not matter whether I were happy or sad, that it did not matter whether humanity prospered or not, that it didn't matter if a mass murderer killed millions of people. Living a moral life is difficult and a constant struggle; why would anyone live that way if it meant nothing?

Maybe you can live that way, but I cannot. Please explain to me, then, how it is not reasonable to choose the personal universe over the impersonal one?

Yes, you can. You can observe the value of the individual to society before his murder and then conclude that the society has lost that value when he died, thus proving murder to be wrong.

And here you're assuming that society has any value, and you're assuming that whatever this person did for society has value. More and more assumptions that would make it, by your definition, illogical to believe murder is wrong.

Not to mention the natural corollary to this rationale for murder being wrong: if someone provides no value to society, there is no reason that it be immoral to kill him.

There is no point at which you have to "assume" A. Asserting that only serves to demonstrate the metaphysical backflips you are willing to partake in.

See above. If you're going to value anything, at some point you've got to assume that something has inherent value.

And what's with this talk of "metaphysical backflips"? The way you dismiss it, it seem like "considering metaphysics in any way shape or form" is performing "metaphysical backflips."

Continually repeating that I'm mistaking empiricism for logic does not make it true.

Well, you are at the very least displaying a complete disregard of the fact that mathematical and scientific logic are completely different than philosophical logic.

You keep accusing people of not "understanding" what logic is, while simultaneously referring to it's somewhat undefined nature. Do you not see a problem with claiming logic to be nebulous and then claiming not only to know what is and isn't logical, but also as having a monopoly on it's understanding? One of the core tenets of logic is consistency, a concept that you seem to be having difficulty with. It's almost like you're engaging in one giant relativist fallacy.

I am not saying that I'm the only one who knows what is logical and not. I am applying standards that have been well agreed upon in different fields. In fact, you're the one who insists that if something's logical, then all logical people will reach the same conclusion, which is completely false. All computers will reach the same answer given a piece of computer logic and all mathematicians will reach the same conclusion to a given mathematical problem, but to say that all philosophers will reach the same conclusions about the meaning of life using logic is completely ridiculous.

Science does not answer the question, "What is right and what is wrong?" and it does not try to. It is a completely different field altogether. To apply the same standards of burdens of proof is (dare I say it?) completely illogical and unreasonable.

I am not saying that logic is not "somewhat undefined." I am saying that it depends a lot of what you start with. And the point I'm trying to make is when you're discussing things like morality and value and truth (here enters metaphysics; ignore at your own peril), people assume different things, all of which can be perfectly reasonable.

And yes, logic is consistent, but you fail to ever take into considerations the assumptions people make when applying it. If logic is consistent in the way you mean it, let's put Aquinas, Hume, Kant, et al. in a room together. They know far more about logic than either of us. They should be able to bang out a logical platform for morality that every logical person would agree to in no time at all. All the world's problems would finally be solved since there would be a standard for morality that would be logical infallible.

We know this is not true. And if you insist on treating philosophical logic like mathematic and scientific logic, I really don't see the point of continuing this discussion.

The two are completely different and deal with completely different things. Figuring out what happens to someone if they fall of a cliff is a completely different problem than figuring out if murder is wrong. To apply the same standards of logic is ridiculous, and yes, betrays a deep misunderstanding of the wide scope of logic and the limits to the value of empirical observation to humanity.

[steve knight]

The denominations, I have belonged too, take the Bible literally and completely. We don't throw out difficult passages because we may not understand them or want to justify our own lives and the passages condemns that.

how can you when the book contradicts it's self. when it preaches doing evil things like owning slaves? do you go and start owning slaves do you recommend killing large amounts of people because they don't like your way of believing?
how do you justify the evil god has done? god is all loving the bible tells is but he murders too?

so how do you take the bible literally with all the problems it presents?
also since you have to interpret it to even read it (that's pretty much the way of most books) how do you know your version is right over another Christians sect is? how do you know that you are really understanding what the bible says when you have to interpret it to even read it? your life experience and beliefs and such change the meaning of the book.
god made homosexual people since most are born that way but the bible condemns them. so that's ok?

[.Andy]

The universe is greater than ourselves. It is either personal or not. There is no evidence for either. Ergo, the assumption of either is just as reasonable as the other.
This is a good example of framing a question.

[Macaddicttt]

This is a good example of framing a question.

You see another option?

[.Andy]

You see another option?
I see nothing but an assertion that two options are equally valid.

[Macaddicttt]

I see nothing but an assertion that two options are equally valid.

If there are only two options and there is no way of empirically deciding one or the other, then both options are equally valid. I thought this was quite clear in my post. If I am merely framing the question then either provide a third option or assert that it is possible to observe the entire universe and therefore observe whether it is personal or impersonal.

[.Andy]

If there are only two options and there is no way of empirically deciding one or the other, then both options are equally valid.
Even when framed with a binary choice two options don't demand to be equally valid. Your premise is wrong. You aren't presenting a logical argument. You have your conclusion and are framing questions in a way that support it. As per the proofs by aquinas.

[Macaddicttt]

Even when framed with a binary choice two options don't demand to be equally valid. Your premise is wrong. You aren't presenting a logical argument. You have your conclusion and are framing questions in a way that support it. As per the proofs by aquinas.

Two options do demand to be equally valid if no observations can be made about it. Imagine Schrödinger's Cat, but with the inability to look in the box.

And what is my premise? And why is it wrong?

[DoFoT9]

ahhh logic my one true HATE

[Iscariot]

And here you're assuming that society has any value, and you're assuming that whatever this person did for society has value.
If you assume that society has no value, what is the purpose of this exercise?
More and more assumptions that would make it, by your definition, illogical to believe murder is wrong.

That's kind of ridiculous. Logic is a human construct, created by human minds to apply to human situations. This is a pretty elaborate and poorly made straw man.
Not to mention the natural corollary to this rationale for murder being wrong: if someone provides no value to society, there is no reason that it be immoral to kill him.

I suppose that would be an argument in favour of capital punishment or life imprisonment, which are two steps that are taken when an individual demonstrates a detrimental value to society.
In fact, you're the one who insists that if something's logical, then all logical people will reach the same conclusion, which is completely false.

I don't suppose you can actually provide a link to where I've said that?
All computers will reach the same answer given a piece of computer logic and all mathematicians will reach the same conclusion to a given mathematical problem, but to say that all philosophers will reach the same conclusions about the meaning of life using logic is completely ridiculous.

I don't suppose you can actually provide a link to where I've said that?
And yes, logic is consistent, but you fail to ever take into considerations the assumptions people make when applying it. If logic is consistent in the way you mean it, let's put Aquinas, Hume, Kant, et al. in a room together. They know far more about logic than either of us. They should be able to bang out a logical platform for morality that every logical person would agree to in no time at all. All the world's problems would finally be solved since there would be a standard for morality that would be logical infallible.

For someone who is insistent almost to the point of arrogance that others do not have a working knowledge of logic, you are certainly engaging in an awful lot of logical fallacies, from appeals to belief to appeals to straw men to red herrings.
And if you insist on treating philosophical logic like mathematic and scientific logic, I really don't see the point of continuing this discussion.

You're welcome to take your ball and go home.
The two are completely different and deal with completely different things. Figuring out what happens to someone if they fall of a cliff is a completely different problem than figuring out if murder is wrong. To apply the same standards of logic is ridiculous, and yes, betrays a deep misunderstanding of the wide scope of logic and the limits to the value of empirical observation to humanity.

That's completely incorrect. It's possible to create an entire moral construct built entirely of logic and "assuming" only that the perpetuation of the human species is in the best interest of humans. Your arguments continue to hinge on drawing back to metaphysical arguments that not only are largely irrelevant but are also flat out wrong; you don't need a metaphysical framework to determine value, and believing that metaphysics is unnecessary is not nihilistic, nor does it lead to a nihilistic viewpoint. Acknowledging the limitations of epistemology is not the same thing as admitting the need for a metaphysical solution to bridge the gaps in our thinking.

EDIT: after seeing this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=8351422#post8351422) thread, I can see why you don't want to assume society has any value…

[Macaddicttt]

If you assume that society has no value, what is the purpose of this exercise?

My point is merely that you have to make assumptions.


That's kind of ridiculous. Logic is a human construct, created by human minds to apply to human situations. This is a pretty elaborate and poorly made straw man.

Logic is a human construct, yes, but for some reason it's illogical to believe in its value, while it's illogical to believe in the value of another "human construct," namely God?


I don't suppose you can actually provide a link to where I've said that?

You've more than implied it in your insistence that if faith were logical, it wouldn't be faith, but just common sense.

That's completely incorrect. It's possible to create an entire moral construct built entirely of logic and "assuming" only that the perpetuation of the human species is in the best interest of humans.

This is patently absurd. I assume one thing about the human experience and it makes my entire belief system illogical, but you can assume that there is value in perpetuating humanity without any empirical evidence and still create "an entire moral construct built entirely of logic."

EDIT: after seeing this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=8351422#post8351422) thread, I can see why you don't want to assume society has any value…

I never said I didn't want to. I was only pointing out your contradiction in saying that valuing a personal (as opposed to impersonal) understanding of the universe is illogical, while valuing society is not. Both require assumptions to be made for which there is no physical evidence, yet for some reason in your mind, one is illogical while the other is perfectly logical.

[Iscariot]

My point is merely that you have to make assumptions.

Only insofar as everything is an assumption bound by our understanding of the universe.
Logic is a human construct, yes, but for some reason it's illogical to believe in its value, while it's illogical to believe in the value of another "human construct," namely God?

One is a human construct whose value and evidence can in fact be determined through some level of empiricism, and the other is not. It's noteworthy to note that I did not say that the human construct of God has no value, merely that it is illogical. This is again your insistence that illogical = bad. I have been on record as stating that is not the case.
You've more than implied it in your insistence that if faith were logical, it wouldn't be faith, but just common sense.

Fairly certain I didn't say that, either.
This is patently absurd. I assume one thing about the human experience and it makes my entire belief system illogical, but you can assume that there is value in perpetuating humanity without any empirical evidence and still create "an entire moral construct built entirely of logic."

There is a huge difference between asserting that human beings have value — an idea that can at least be observed through some level of empiricism — and assuming a creator and the nature of the entire universe, and that those two things can even be understood by the human mind. What is patently absurd is asserting that the two can even be compared, even just on the premise of scale alone.

[djellison]

The universe is greater than ourselves. It is either personal or not. There is no evidence for either. Ergo, the assumption of either is just as reasonable as the other.


The universe is LARGER than ourselves. I mean, I'm THIS big (hands about 6ft apart) - but the universe is about 93 billion light years across based on our current best understanding.

Claiming it as 'personal' is a bit, well, selfish.

But if we are to assume that EVERYTHING for which there is no evidence either way is equally likely - then right now, there's a 50/50 chance of a Giraffe standing in my garden.

Is there, really?

We have no data on the matter. I've not looked at my garden for some hours - so we really have no evidence. So by YOUR logic - the chance of their being a Giraffe in my garden, or indeed, a God existing - is 50/50.

But I think you'd agree - the chances of there being a Giraffe in my garden right now are fairly slim. It's not a leap of faith to say so, it is not a bold presumption.

So - what is it about the universe that YOU find so compelling to dictate that there MUST be a God, whereas the majority of people on the planet come to the conclusion that there is either NO God, or a DIFFERENT God to yours.

You're bucking the trend somewhat. On what basis.

[iBlue]

I was born, I will die. While I'm here on this earth I want to live each day without regret, enjoy the fruits of my labor, contribute positively to this world we share, savor the joy of friendship and create my own destiny as a human being. I do not wish to be condemned by others for not agreeing with their beliefs, I do not wish to be told that my actions in life will cause me eternal suffering after death, I do not wish to live in a society where the majority feel that everyone should share these beliefs and I do not wish to be judged by others for admitting that I do not go to church and do not follow any religion.

Therein lies my fundamental problem with Christianity. . .I wouldn't have a problem with it if Christians refrained from proselytizing and trying to impose their values on an entire society.

Great post.


I understand why religion gained the power it has. The compelling desire to find reason and "explanation" in the mysterious. As time goes on and we learn more about the world and universe I wonder why it continues to maintain such a stubborn stance and people still cling to it. But then, I suppose I can sort of understand that as well. People, some people, find comfort in having guidance, direction and a sense of not being alone - a greater purpose, importance. It's very arrogant and self-fulfilling but ultimately understandable.

I think scaling our egotistical human selves down in perspective is mind-blowing. I'm just a minuscule, irrelevant, fleeting speck of carbon in the grand scheme of things. I think that's fantastic! I don't need any more than that. I have no urge to inflict a god upon myself. I have learned all on my own to appreciate, experience and dictate the ethics of my life on my own terms. It's liberating. This is how I am content and you're all free to find your own solutions to that. Ain't life grand?

[SydneyDev]

And my point is that there is no such thing as a burden of proof for certain things, e.g. the meaning of life, morality, etc. Can you prove that murder is wrong using only observed data? No, you can't. You have to assign value to things in a way that is completely separate from empiricism.

I think there is burden of proof for prescriptive claims. If someone wants to use the bible as their standard of value instead of society or feelings they need to justify why. The only thing there is no burden of proof for is existence itself.

[imac/cheese]

I was born, I will die. While I'm here on this earth I want to live each day without regret, enjoy the fruits of my labor, contribute positively to this world we share, savor the joy of friendship and create my own destiny as a human being. I do not wish to be condemned by others for not agreeing with their beliefs, I do not wish to be told that my actions in life will cause me eternal suffering after death, I do not wish to live in a society where the majority feel that everyone should share these beliefs and I do not wish to be judged by others for admitting that I do not go to church and do not follow any religion.

Therein lies my fundamental problem with Christianity. . .I wouldn't have a problem with it if Christians refrained from proselytizing and trying to impose their values on an entire society.

I agree that you should not be condemned by others and no one should try to impose their values on you, but to have your main problem with Christianity bit the proselytizing seems a bit strange. If you found something that truly changed your life, you would most likely tell other people about it. If you believed that someone you cared about was going to have eternal suffering after death, you would most likely tell them what you know. The problem I see is so often with the way Christians proselytize. Many times we come off as pushy and holier than thou, which is not productive at all in my humble opinion.

For anyone keeping count - this is what I consider the right answer.

From what I have seen, you proselytize more for atheism more on these forums than anyone does for Christianity.

to you it may not be but to others it is. and I bet you would not like it if someone did the same to you. shared their Buddhist belief or their Taoist belief. so far I have found Christians love to preach but hate it when it is turned around.

I love for people to share their beliefs with me. Bring on the Mormon missionaries (not for Lee's reasons ;) ) and the Jehovah's Witnesses. It always creates interesting discussions and improves my own understanding of my faith. It also personalizes the debate so that you can't simply dismiss others and their beliefs quite as easily.

If I cared about what they believed in, I'd ask.

Does this go for all discussions or just religious ones? Do people you know always have to wait for you to ask them things before they can speak to you?

...also since you have to interpret it to even read it (that's pretty much the way of most books) how do you know your version is right over another Christians sect is? how do you know that you are really understanding what the bible says when you have to interpret it to even read it? your life experience and beliefs and such change the meaning of the book.
god made homosexual people since most are born that way but the bible condemns them. so that's ok?

You are right about interpretations of the bible. Some of the bible is extremely clear and some of it is vague and difficult to understand. Life experience can definitely change the way a verse is understood or bring new light to a confusing verse that had troubled you. Continual study and exploration, combined with guidance from the holy spirit, is the only way to develop a good understanding of what god is telling us through his word.

I understand why religion gained the power it has. The compelling desire to find reason and "explanation" in the mysterious. As time goes on and we learn more about the world and universe I wonder why it continues to maintain such a stubborn stance and people still cling to it. But then, I suppose I can sort of understand that as well. People, some people, find comfort in having guidance, direction and a sense of not being alone - a greater purpose, importance. It's very arrogant and self-fulfilling but ultimately understandable.

I am confused about how having guidance, direction, and a sense of not being alone is arrogant. Do you mean that humans are arrogant to think we are so special that an all-powerful god created us?

[skunk]

Do you mean that humans are arrogant to think we are so special that an all-powerful god created us?This is certainly a valid view. Anthropocentrism is absurdly arrogant.

[imac/cheese]

This is certainly a valid view. Anthropocentrism is absurdly arrogant.

I think I understand now. I was a bit confused on what she was trying to say. It is not about religious people thinking they are better than non-religious people but religious people thinking that humans are somehow special in this vast universe.

[yg17]

Does this go for all discussions or just religious ones? Do people you know always have to wait for you to ask them things before they can speak to you?

Just religious ones. Someone's religious beliefs are personal, and I don't want you discussing yours, mine or lack thereof. Discussing the weather or how a sports team is doing isn't exactly personal.

[Badandy]

If you believed that someone you cared about was going to have eternal suffering after death, you would most likely tell them what you know. The problem I see is so often with the way Christians proselytize. Many times we come off as pushy and holier than thou, which is not productive at all in my humble opinion.


The mere existence of the belief that non-believers will eternally suffer (you know, without any evidence that this is true) surpasses most people's quota for holier than thou arguments. Proselytizing, by its very nature, is insulting to the person you're attempting to convert. We don't appreciate it.

[it5five]

The mere existence of the belief that non-believers will eternally suffer (you know, without any evidence that this is true) surpasses most people's quota for holier than thou arguments. Proselytizing, by its very nature, is insulting to the person you're attempting to convert. We don't appreciate it.

Exactly.

And nice location Badandy. I'm re-reading the entire Foundation series right now.

[imac/cheese]

The mere existence of the belief that non-believers will eternally suffer (you know, without any evidence that this is true) surpasses most people's quota for holier than thou arguments. Proselytizing, by its very nature, is insulting to the person you're attempting to convert. We don't appreciate it.

So you are insulted by the fact that the proselytizer believes in something and thinks it is worth sharing with you?

In my opinion, a Christian who believes the only way to heaven is through Jesus that does not share his or her faith with you is doing you a diservice. Why would you want your Christian friend to believe you were going to suffer eternally, but not do something about it?

[Iscariot]

So you are insulted by the fact that the proselytizer believes in something and thinks it is worth sharing with you?

In my opinion, a Christian who believes the only way to heaven is through Jesus that does not share his or her faith with you is doing you a diservice. Why would you want your Christian friend to believe you were going to suffer eternally, but not do something about it?

I would prefer my Christian friend not be so arrogant to believe that they can speak of my existence and a God, so naïve as to believe that I was somehow unaware of the beliefs of the most dominant religion on the continent, so zealous as to believe my soul falls under their jurisdiction, and so disrespectful as to believe that their choices for me should trump my own.

[yg17]

So you are insulted by the fact that the proselytizer believes in something and thinks it is worth sharing with you?

In my opinion, a Christian who believes the only way to heaven is through Jesus that does not share his or her faith with you is doing you a diservice. Why would you want your Christian friend to believe you were going to suffer eternally, but not do something about it?

Yes, it's insulting because the proselytizer has no idea if what he's saying is even remotely accurate or not. I could believe that there is a magical unicorn in my backyard that poops out money for anyone who walks by to pick up and take with them. Now, I may strongly believe that this is real and that it's beneficial for you to visit this magical money pooping unicorn so you can get rich, but that's my belief, but in reality, am I really doing you a disservice by not sharing my belief in this magical money pooping unicorn?

Giving false information is more of a disservice than giving no information.

[OutThere]

So you are insulted by the fact that the proselytizer believes in something and thinks it is worth sharing with you?

In my opinion, a Christian who believes the only way to heaven is through Jesus that does not share his or her faith with you is doing you a diservice. Why would you want your Christian friend to believe you were going to suffer eternally, but not do something about it?

It's fine if you believe that, but I think 99% of American adults are familiar with the concepts of heaven and hell and can make the decision themselves and don't need to be told how to live by strangers who are concerned for them all the time.

I agree that you should not be condemned by others and no one should try to impose their values on you, but to have your main problem with Christianity bit the proselytizing seems a bit strange. If you found something that truly changed your life, you would most likely tell other people about it. If you believed that someone you cared about was going to have eternal suffering after death, you would most likely tell them what you know. The problem I see is so often with the way Christians proselytize. Many times we come off as pushy and holier than thou, which is not productive at all in my humble opinion.

It is in essence pushy and holier than thou to say that you are right and I am wrong in the way we live our lives, and that to be 'saved' I have to live like you.

[djellison]

In my opinion, a Christian who believes the only way to heaven is through Jesus that does not share his or her faith with you is doing you a diservice.

They're doing me, and themselves a favour - not a disservice.

Even the very phrasology has me rolling my eyes "through Jesus" - it's meaningless, waffly, nonsensical nothingness.

Surely - if this 'God' is out there, and this 'Heaven' exists and we have to go through 'Jesus' to get there - surely ANYONE for whom this is going to function, exist, be perceived as anything other than pure fiction - it will be self evident. These entities and processes will make themselves known to them. This 'God' of yours clearly doesn't want me to know he/she/it exists, or their existence would be evident to me. What does it say about the jurisdiction, influence and power of this higher being that the whole universe exists because of this being, we are here as lesser beings under this thing, the world revolved around its spiritual guidance and our ultimate fate and destiny is in the hands of this spiritual being - but I'd only notice because YOU pointed it out. How utterly farcical is that. Is it even slightly plausible?

It isn't. Not even slightly. Infact there are so many contraindications to the existence of any higher being, that such a being must either not exist, or be both evil AND incompetent it genuinely biblical proportions.

Someone like you saying "You can get to heaven through Jesus" is going to get, at the VERY best, a derisive snort.

[DoFoT9]

I would prefer my Christian friend not be so arrogant to believe that they can speak of my existence and a God, so naïve as to believe that I was somehow unaware of the beliefs of the most dominant religion on the continent, so zealous as to believe my soul falls under their jurisdiction, and so disrespectful as to believe that their choices for me should trump my own.

i completely understand where you are coming from on this one. i have (had more like it) a friend who is christian, he is as religious as you get.

being the good friend that i was i went along to youth group with him etcetc, though i never had an interest for what i see as being a slave to god. i even went to his baptism "rebirthing" in which he tried to get me baptised with him.... i was so outraged.

im furious at these type of people who think they are higher then us. one day he even said to me "at least i have a way out" or something like that, i just laughed in his face.

if hell exists and i get there, it better be all its cracked up to be. ;)

[skunk]

In my opinion, a Christian who believes the only way to heaven is through Jesus that does not share his or her faith with you is doing you a disservice. Why would you want your Christian friend to believe you were going to suffer eternally, but not do something about it?Any self-styled religionist of any colour whose core beliefs include that the followers of any other god(s) or none are for that reason alone deprived of the key to the executive toilet is clearly unfit to share anything with anybody.

[Rt&Dzine]

Yup....I don't go around to my friends and say "I want to share my Atheism with you!" nor has any Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, Taoist, Muslim, Rastafarian or anyone of any other religion ever come up to me and start sharing their beliefs.

Not even the ********** Scientologists have ever done that.

The Scientologist's MO is to get you to take a personality test.

[steve knight]

if a christian (or any other religion who thinks they own God) don't believe in any of the old gods or gods of other beliefs if they don't believe in 1000 gods why are they so concerned if I don't believe in 1001 gods?
it is pretty much impossible to tell someone about how great god is and that you will go to hell unless you believe the way I do without coming off the wrong way. I mean your really only saying that your belief is better then mine no matter how subtle you are. but if you think your belief is better then everyone else's then you are just showing ignorance.
I am sorry but there is no holy book that was written by god. or inspired by him. they pretty much all claim that so how can you just pick and choose and say yours is better? if you change someones belief too yours and you are wrong and they die and go to hell have you just committed a evil?
the religious person with no doubts about their faith are the scariest of all.
if there is a god or gods and I am not saying I know because I know for a fact I don't and no one else does either I very much doubt God/s have a favorite religion or football team.

[iBlue]

I am confused about how having guidance, direction, and a sense of not being alone is arrogant. Do you mean that humans are arrogant to think we are so special that an all-powerful god created us?This is certainly a valid view. Anthropocentrism is absurdly arrogant.

Great word, perfect in this case.

Yes, this.

I would prefer my Christian friend not be so arrogant to believe that they can speak of my existence and a God, so naïve as to believe that I was somehow unaware of the beliefs of the most dominant religion on the continent, so zealous as to believe my soul falls under their jurisdiction, and so disrespectful as to believe that their choices for me should trump my own.

But also this. ^

[djellison]

if hell exists and i get there, it better be all its cracked up to be. ;)

It better have WiFi.

[DoFoT9]

It better have WiFi.

i sure hope it does otherwise i wont be able to use my iBurn :cool:

[imac/cheese]

I would prefer my Christian friend not be so arrogant to believe that they can speak of my existence and a God, so naïve as to believe that I was somehow unaware of the beliefs of the most dominant religion on the continent, so zealous as to believe my soul falls under their jurisdiction, and so disrespectful as to believe that their choices for me should trump my own.

If they truly believe it for their own life, which is why they are Christians in the first place, why would they not believe the same rules apply to everyone else? How is it arrogant to speak of existence and god?

It might be naive to believe you are unaware of Christianity, but I personally would never share my faith with someone as if they are unaware of the religion.

Most Christians do not believe they have jurisdiction over your soul. They believe that god has that jurisdiction.

Most Christians do not believe that their choices trump yours. We believe you will be completely responsible for your own choices.

Yes, it's insulting because the proselytizer has no idea if what he's saying is even remotely accurate or not. I could believe that there is a magical unicorn in my backyard that poops out money for anyone who walks by to pick up and take with them. Now, I may strongly believe that this is real and that it's beneficial for you to visit this magical money pooping unicorn so you can get rich, but that's my belief, but in reality, am I really doing you a disservice by not sharing my belief in this magical money pooping unicorn?

Giving false information is more of a disservice than giving no information.

So your entire point is that it is wrong to proseltyze because you believe that Christianity is a bunch of crap. If I was your friend, and you truly believed that you had a cash-pooping unicorn in your backyard, I would be irritated if you decided not to tell me about it. I might not believe you until I saw the creature for myself, but if you were willing to base your future on that unicorn, I would at least listen to what you had to say and probably even go to your house to see what you are talking about. Of course at that point the magical unicorn would disappear and you would swear it was really there and would probably come back out as soon as I left... :)

Most Christians willing to share their faith have a strong belief that what they are sharing is completely accurate.

It's fine if you believe that, but I think 99% of American adults are familiar with the concepts of heaven and hell and can make the decision themselves and don't need to be told how to live by strangers who are concerned for them all the time.

It is in essence pushy and holier than thou to say that you are right and I am wrong in the way we live our lives, and that to be 'saved' I have to live like you.

I would not even say that 99% of Christians have any idea what the bible really says let alone the non-Christians. Being familiar with the concepts of heaven and hell, has little to do with being aware of what Christ did and how his actions affect us.

Don't most people believe that what they believe in is right and people who believe differently are wrong?

In Christianity, being saved is not about how you live, it is about where you put your trust.

They're doing me, and themselves a favour - not a disservice.

Even the very phrasology has me rolling my eyes "through Jesus" - it's meaningless, waffly, nonsensical nothingness.

Surely - if this 'God' is out there, and this 'Heaven' exists and we have to go through 'Jesus' to get there - surely ANYONE for whom this is going to function, exist, be perceived as anything other than pure fiction - it will be self evident. These entities and processes will make themselves known to them. This 'God' of yours clearly doesn't want me to know he/she/it exists, or their existence would be evident to me. What does it say about the jurisdiction, influence and power of this higher being that the whole universe exists because of this being, we are here as lesser beings under this thing, the world revolved around its spiritual guidance and our ultimate fate and destiny is in the hands of this spiritual being - but I'd only notice because YOU pointed it out. How utterly farcical is that. Is it even slightly plausible?

It isn't. Not even slightly. Infact there are so many contraindications to the existence of any higher being, that such a being must either not exist, or be both evil AND incompetent it genuinely biblical proportions.

Someone like you saying "You can get to heaven through Jesus" is going to get, at the VERY best, a derisive snort.

So it is not that the person is sharing their beliefs with you, it is that you think they are stupid beliefs.

...im furious at these type of people who think they are higher then us. one day he even said to me "at least i have a way out" or something like that, i just laughed in his face.

Personally, as a Christian, I do not think of myself as higher than you. I don't think of myself as better than you.

it is pretty much impossible to tell someone about how great god is and that you will go to hell unless you believe the way I do without coming off the wrong way.

I agree. It is difficult to do.

but if you think your belief is better then everyone else's then you are just showing ignorance.
I am sorry but there is no holy book that was written by god. or inspired by him.

Interesting two sentences.

they pretty much all claim that so how can you just pick and choose and say yours is better? if you change someones belief too yours and you are wrong and they die and go to hell have you just committed a evil?

Yes.

[Iscariot]

If they truly believe it for their own life, which is why they are Christians in the first place, why would they not believe the same rules apply to everyone else? How is it arrogant to speak of existence and god? Most Christians do not believe they have jurisdiction over your soul. They believe that god has that jurisdiction. Most Christians do not believe that their choices trump yours. We believe you will be completely responsible for your own choices.

It is arrogant to believe that they have some insight that I do not, and that I "need" this insight. They do not possess faculties that I do not, senses that I do not, or an intellect that I do not. If they are evangelizing they are not coming from a place of respect and humility. Not only is it incredibly arrogant to believe that you're even capable of doing God's work, but to assume that in doing so you can speak of the soul of another human being and the nature of the entire universe demonstrates a kind of zealous arrogance that seems to exist only amongst the righteous.

[imac/cheese]

It is arrogant to believe that they have some insight that I do not, and that I "need" this insight. They do not possess faculties that I do not, senses that I do not, or an intellect that I do not. If they are evangelizing they are not coming from a place of respect and humility. Not only is it incredibly arrogant to believe that you're even capable of doing God's work, but to assume that in doing so you can speak of the soul of another human being and the nature of the entire universe demonstrates a kind of zealous arrogance that seems to exist only amongst the righteous.

Do you believe you have insight that Christians do not? Is that arrogant? Evangelizing does not mean that they can't have respect and humility. I agree that many evangelists do not have respect and humility and many are arrogant, but I don't see the act of sharing what you believe with others to be arrogant in and of itself.

I believe all people are capable of doing god's work, so I don't see that as arrogant, except possibly in the anthropocentrism sense (thanks iBlue and skunk).

I don't really get your point about speaking of the soul of another human being. Are you saying that I do not have the right to state what I believe are the characteristics of another person's soul? Can I state what I believe are the characteristics of my own soul without being arrogant?

[DoFoT9]

Personally, as a Christian, I do not think of myself as higher than you. I don't think of myself as better than you.

thats good then. but the people i know are of the opinion that they are "saved" and the rest of us a "doomed", and they tend to voice it a lot. to be honest i dont care what happens - if it happens then damn, you were right. if your not then ah well everyone needs something to believe in. can you see where i am coming from?

funnily enough a few old religious people just came knocking at my door

[steve knight]

It is arrogant to believe that they have some insight that I do not, and that I "need" this insight. They do not possess faculties that I do not, senses that I do not, or an intellect that I do not. If they are evangelizing they are not coming from a place of respect and humility. Not only is it incredibly arrogant to believe that you're even capable of doing God's work, but to assume that in doing so you can speak of the soul of another human being and the nature of the entire universe demonstrates a kind of zealous arrogance that seems to exist only amongst the righteous.

Preach it brother. you need to get a TV show and start collecting donations.

[steve knight]

Do you believe you have insight that Christians do not? Is that arrogant? Evangelizing does not mean that they can't have respect and humility. I agree that many evangelists do not have respect and humility and many are arrogant, but I don't see the act of sharing what you believe with others to be arrogant in and of itself.

I believe all people are capable of doing god's work, so I don't see that as arrogant, except possibly in the anthropocentrism sense (thanks iBlue and skunk).



the problem is you can't share your beliefs with someone that does not agree with you. it changes from sharing to I know better then you. How can it not? otherwise why would you share it?
what is gods work? burning witches and heretics? killing gods enemy? killing doctors you don't agree with?
how can you claim it is gods work when no one knows what god wants. I very much doubt god is shackled by a religious belief. I should hope he/she/it is far beyond that.
to claim you do gods work is just saying that you want to do it and you can blame god for your actions.
more eveil has been done in gods name then any other single source.

[Zombie Acorn]

thats good then. but the people i know are of the opinion that they are "saved" and the rest of us a "doomed", and they tend to voice it a lot. to be honest i dont care what happens - if it happens then damn, you were right. if your not then ah well everyone needs something to believe in. can you see where i am coming from?

funnily enough a few old religious people just came knocking at my door

I think it depends where you live, many places around the coast seem a lot more laid back on Christian values, more accepting of atheism, around here its basically like the plague. You will be ostracized from your own family for being atheist.

I think the "they are doomed" attitude is what breeds a lot of hate for religious people. Even if you don't out rightly say "you are doomed" if you follow the book you are reading it seems that you believe it anyways.

[AceWilfong]

Christians were introduced here and, with a paucity of natural enemies, soon were able to take over. Something like the rabbits in Australia.

[DoFoT9]

I think it depends where you live, many places around the coast seem a lot more laid back on Christian values, more accepting of atheism,
yea on the coast here in australia eveyone is more "laid back", the bogans tend to help that ;)
around here its basically like the plague. You will be ostracized from your own family for being atheist.
are you serious? that is pathetic. the religion is supposed to be all forgiving and fair and everything, but in my experience i have to agree that its a reality that the people will put themselves above you and shame you. *not saying its true for everyone, just saying thats my experience, maybe i hang with the wrong people?*


I think the "they are doomed" attitude is what breeds a lot of hate for religious people. Even if you don't out rightly say "you are doomed" if you follow the book you are reading it seems that you believe it anyways.

it definitely does for me, if somebody says that to me ill pretty much not be friends with them because that means they have judged me - if they are free to do what they want them so am i, i dont get up them for believing in something...

[DoFoT9]

Christians were introduced here and, with a paucity of natural enemies, soon were able to take over. Something like the rabbits in Australia.

BAHAHA its pretty bad here, you wouldnt believe it.

[imac/cheese]

the problem is you can't share your beliefs with someone that does not agree with you. it changes from sharing to I know better then you. How can it not? otherwise why would you share it?
what is gods work? burning witches and heretics? killing gods enemy? killing doctors you don't agree with?
how can you claim it is gods work when no one knows what god wants. I very much doubt god is shackled by a religious belief. I should hope he/she/it is far beyond that.
to claim you do gods work is just saying that you want to do it and you can blame god for your actions.
more eveil has been done in gods name then any other single source.

You ask how can it not become "I know better than you"? It completely depends on the proselytizer. A good evangelist is one that listens to a person and creates a discussion instead of just simply telling other people they are going to burn in hell. I have had lots of great discussions and debates with non-christians where both points of view were respected and shared. Just because people have differing viewpoints on the subject does not mean we should just avoid the topic completely.

You ask what is god's work? I see it as the great commission: Mark 16:15 "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

Burning witches and heretics, killing god's enemies and doctors are definitely not what the bible calls us to do. I believe that the bible is the word of god and therefore tells us what god wants us to do. I don't blame god for any of my actions. If I do something that is evil, it is not because god wanted me to do it.

I think it depends where you live, many places around the coast seem a lot more laid back on Christian values, more accepting of atheism, around here its basically like the plague. You will be ostracized from your own family for being atheist.

It is sad that people are ostracized for being atheist. That does nothing but push them further from god.

[yg17]

It is sad that people are ostracized for being atheist. That does nothing but push them further from god.

It's sad that people are ostracized for being atheist because no one should be treated poorly because of their religious beliefs, not because it pushes them further away from god. Being pushed further away from religion is a good thing.

[djellison]

That does nothing but push them further from god.

From who?

In my world, there isn't such a thing. There might be in your world - but I don't live in your world.

I'm rapidly reaching the conclusion that religious people live in a world different to mine. We may share the same air and walk the same ground - but it's different worlds.

It's the only explanation I can think of to explain how or why someone would believe in a God without resorting to diagnosable psychiatric conditions.

[Wotan31]

What is the deal with christianity? Why do honest, loving, wonderful people identify themselves with a group that has been responsible for acts of sheer lunacy and the deaths of millions throughout history?
So you're an atheist. Fine. Whatever, that's your problem. Why are you focusing on Christianity, and on religious wars that happened thousands of years ago?

The ancient Mayans sacrificed virgins by cutting their still-beating hearts out. Sure it was 1000 years ago, but whatever. Lets blame the Mexicans for that. How can anyone possibly date a Mexican today, knowing that they committed these barbaric acts? :rolleyes:

If you're going to look at the state of religion in the world, look at it in its current state. Today. Have you taken a look at Islam lately? That's a religion whose beliefs include guaranteed admittance to heaven if you die performing an act in the name of Islam. I.e. a suicide bombing. That's a religion whose beliefs include jailing a woman if she is raped, because she is guilty of putting herself in that situation. That's a religion whose beliefs include forcefully converting others using violence. That's a religion that is integrated with government (Sharia Law) in many countries, where it is *illegal* to practice any other religion or to be an atheist - and the punishment is death. That is a religion where homosexuality is illegal, punishable by death. These are not things that happened 1000 years ago. These are things that happen right now. Today.

[djellison]

These are things that happen right now. Today.

Guess what. A christian movement stopped gay marriage in California. A christian movement put religious brainwashing into science books. A christian movement is DIRECTLY to blame for MILLIONS of deaths from HIV/AIDS in Africa.

These are also things happening right now. Today The last isn't even fundamentalist religion - it's the direct orders of the Catholic Church that are responsible.

If you want to take Islamic Fundamentalism and project it onto all of Islam - then shall we take the head of the KKK and project it onto all of Christianity? We can go and cite passages from the bible that explicitly demand the putting to death of people for utterly nonsensical 'crimes'. Is that where you want to go?

It's attitudes likes yours - from ANY religion - that cause so much hatred and violence in this world.

[Wotan31]

Guess what. A christian movement stopped gay marriage in California. A christian movement put religious brainwashing into science books. A christian movement is DIRECTLY to blame for MILLIONS of deaths from HIV/AIDS in Africa.

These are also things happening right now. Today The last isn't even fundamentalist religion - it's the direct orders of the Catholic Church that are responsible.

If you want to take Islamic Fundamentalism and project it onto all of Islam - then shall we take the head of the KKK and project it onto all of Christianity? We can go and cite passages from the bible that explicitly demand the putting to death of people for utterly nonsensical 'crimes'. Is that where you want to go?

It's attitudes likes yours - from ANY religion - that cause so much hatred and violence in this world.

LMAO your straw-man response is laughable! Not allowing "gay marriage" is somehow on par with executing gays? And the KKK? Really? You're kidding, right? And to close, you're blaming ME for violence in the world? LMAO!! I suppose I don't need to mention the many millions of dollars and thousands of aid workers from Christian charities that are working to fight AIDS, disease, and poverty in Africa.

Aside from the suicide bombings, what I described was part of Sharia Law - the law of the land in Islamic nations. You're ignorance is showing if you think that's some kind of fringe extremism. That is mainstream Islam. Written in the Quoran. Those things are the law, enforced by the government, and practiced by 100's of millions of people around the globe. Please- if you're going to comment on something, at least have a clue what you're talking about lol!

[djellison]

I knew responding to someone like you was a mistake.

"you're blaming ME for violence in the world?"

No. I blamed attitudes like yours.

Please don't bother replying - I'm adding you to my ignore list.

[Wotan31]

Please don't bother replying - I'm adding you to my ignore list.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

[yg17]

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

No, I'd imagine it's because debating with a plant would be less of a waste of time than debating with someone who has an attitude like yours.

[leekohler]

I knew responding to someone like you was a mistake.

"you're blaming ME for violence in the world?"

No. I blamed attitudes like yours.

Please don't bother replying - I'm adding you to my ignore list.

You think that's bad, look at this post #101 at the top of the page:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=772121&page=5

[Wotan31]

You think that's bad, look at this post #101 at the top of the page:

Good grief. Really? I'm actually a little sad that you've reduced yourself to this.

You're such a tolerant and diverse person - unless someone presents a viewpoint different from your own. :rolleyes:

[imac/cheese]

Good grief. Really? I'm actually a little sad that you've reduced yourself to this.

You're such a tolerant and diverse person - unless someone presents a viewpoint different from your own. :rolleyes:

Is he to be tolerant of your viewpoint that Obama is just like Hitler? When you present an asinine analogy like that one, you can't expect people to simply accept it as a valid point.

[leekohler]

Is he to be tolerant of your viewpoint that Obama is just like Hitler? When you present an asinine analogy like that one, you can't expect people to simply accept it as a valid point.

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better.

[Wotan31]

Is he to be tolerant of your viewpoint that Obama is just like Hitler? When you present an asinine analogy like that one, you can't expect people to simply accept it as a valid point.
LOL that was humor. satire. you both need to lighten up a bit if you believe that was presented as a political argument. This place is too easy, like going hunting at the zoo. ;)

[leekohler]

LOL that was humor. satire. you both need to lighten up a bit if you believe that was presented as a political argument. This place is too easy, like going hunting at the zoo. ;)

Yet- the only person who gets the joke is you. :rolleyes:

[djellison]

Even with the most heated debates with imac/cheese - I've never felt the need to even consider the ignore list in this place. 2.5 years and it hadn't even crossed my mind. I'm sure Wotan can be proud of his 'kill'. I'm just glad this thread just got a lot more civilised at the click of a button.

[Wotan31]

Yet- the only person who gets the joke is you. :rolleyes:
Everyone's a comedian! Yay! See my post here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8372334&postcount=115) for plenty of examples of Hitler-humor here on MR.

Go ahead, You can put your blinders back on now.

[Wotan31]

I'm just glad this thread just got a lot more civilised at the click of a button.
And like the ostrich, he puts his tiny head into the sand.

Civilized? This thread? More like a lot of sad and confused folks having a KKK-style lynching of organized religion. This thread is the very definition of intolerance and hatred. Why don't you fire up your laserjet printer and print off a few crosses to burn?

But you won't see me calling for an end to it - enjoy your 1st amendment rights, I know I do. :cool:

[yg17]

LOL that was humor. satire. you both need to lighten up a bit if you believe that was presented as a political argument. This place is too easy, like going hunting at the zoo. ;)


Rule #1 of comedy: If you have to explain a joke, it's a terrible joke.

[Rt&Dzine]

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

LOL! You're the one who got your panties in a twist from some comments about Christianity.

[Iscariot]

Do you believe you have insight that Christians do not?

No.

***
Don't feed the troll, guys.

[SydneyDev]

To decide if a claim is true or false you need something to check it against. Some people use their feelings - if they feel it is true then it just is. Some people use society: if most people believe it is true then they think so too. Some people use their holy book: if the book says so then it is.

Rationality is none of these. Rationality is using the facts of reality as your check. Irrationality is using something other than reality as your standard. Christianity uses a book, therefore it is irrational.

[imac/cheese]

Even with the most heated debates with imac/cheese - I've never felt the need to even consider the ignore list in this place. 2.5 years and it hadn't even crossed my mind...

:)

To decide if a claim is true or false you need something to check it against. Some people use their feelings - if they feel it is true then it just is. Some people use society: if most people believe it is true then they think so too. Some people use their holy book: if the book says so then it is.

Rationality is none of these. Rationality is using the facts of reality as your check. Irrationality is using something other than reality as your standard. Christianity uses a book, therefore it is irrational.

If I am going to check the spelling of a word, for example "diservice" to see if I spelled it correctly, I would use the big red book sitting on my shelf. I would find out that the spelling I chose for the word was incorrect and it should be spelled "disservice". Would it be irrational to use that book to find the true spelling of the word? Using a book in and of itself is not irrational. People use books all the time to determine if something is true or false. An expert writes a book and people use that book as a source to make their decision. In the case of the bible, I believe that the expert who wrote it was god. You can say my belief that god wrote the bible is irrational, but to say that using a book is irrational is really a bad argument.

[SydneyDev]

If I am going to check the spelling of a word, for example "diservice" to see if I spelled it correctly, I would use the big red book sitting on my shelf.

Correct spelling is just a convention though.

Using a book in and of itself is not irrational. People use books all the time to determine if something is true or false. An expert writes a book and people use that book as a source to make their decision. In the case of the bible, I believe that the expert who wrote it was god. You can say my belief that god wrote the bible is irrational, but to say that using a book is irrational is really a bad argument.

I should have said using a book as your *ultimate* source of knowledge is irrational. Using a book as a proxy is ok, as long as the book itself points to facts to justify it's claims.

You say God is your ultimate source, not the book, but unless you actually hear His voice in your head, or experience revelation in some other form, you have to admit it really is the book.

Or are you claiming that you actually fact check the bible? If you do, then aren't you insulting God by daring to fact check His work? And if you don't fact check it then as I originally said you are not using reality as your standard.

[imac/cheese]

I should have said using a book as your *ultimate* source of knowledge is irrational. Using a book as a proxy is ok, as long as the book itself points to facts to justify it's claims.

You say God is your ultimate source, not the book, but unless you actually hear His voice in your head, or experience revelation in some other form, you have to admit it really is the book.

I would say that most people who believe the bible have experienced some form of revelation about god.

Or are you claiming that you actually fact check the bible? If you do, then aren't you insulting God by daring to fact check His work? And if you don't fact check it then as I originally said you are not using reality as your standard.

Why would it be insulting to god to fact check the bible? The bible tells us to check everything. Paul, in his first letter to the Thessalonians, states "Test everything. Hold on to the good." He is basically giving advice to the church of the Thessalonians and he wants them to test everything and determine what is true before they believe it.

Every time I read a verse, I am comparing it to other verses as well as what my personal experiences have taught me. I look at science and see how that verse might fit into our new knowledge of the world around us. I examine the different philosophies of the different denominations and theologians to see how that verse has been interpreted over the years.

[SydneyDev]

Every time I read a verse, I am comparing it to other verses as well as what my personal experiences have taught me. I look at science and see how that verse might fit into our new knowledge of the world around us. I examine the different philosophies of the different denominations and theologians to see how that verse has been interpreted over the years.

What do you do if there's a contradiction between the book and the world? Which wins? If the world wins then I wouldn't classify you as irrational.

[steve knight]

I would say that most people who believe the bible have experienced some form of revelation about god.



Why would it be insulting to god to fact check the bible? The bible tells us to check everything. Paul, in his first letter to the Thessalonians, states "Test everything. Hold on to the good." He is basically giving advice to the church of the Thessalonians and he wants them to test everything and determine what is true before they believe it.

Every time I read a verse, I am comparing it to other verses as well as what my personal experiences have taught me. I look at science and see how that verse might fit into our new knowledge of the world around us. I examine the different philosophies of the different denominations and theologians to see how that verse has been interpreted over the years.

there are people who say everything in the bible is real.
after all of this do you find everything in the bible literal or have you found it is not all real?

[Zombie Acorn]

I would say that most people who believe the bible have experienced some form of revelation about god.


If that were true you wouldn't have to actively recruit and/or brainwash your kids from an early age, it would be a natural process.

[djellison]

And evangelising, as I mentioned previously, would be redundant.

[imac/cheese]

What do you do if there's a contradiction between the book and the world? Which wins? If the world wins then I wouldn't classify you as irrational.

If I am confident of scientific results that describe the world around us, I will not discount them just because they do not fit my original interpretation of the bible. I will look for possible errors in both the scientific results and my interpretation.

there are people who say everything in the bible is real.
after all of this do you find everything in the bible literal or have you found it is not all real?

The word "literal" can be a bit confusing when describing the bible and I think people use it in different ways. From the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literal):

1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.
2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.
3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.

The bible is not literal based on definition 1. God shows throughout the bible that he uses metaphors. Jesus used methaphors all the time in his teachings of his followers. If Jesus used methaphors in his teachings, why couldn't god use methaphors in the writing of the rest of the bible?

In definition 2, this is more of a translation issue. Some translations such as the Message or the Living Bible are not very literal at all. Others such as the King James or NASB are much more word for word translations.

In definition 3, we are looking at the truth of the bible. Did Jonah really get swallowed by a whale? I don't know; I wasn't there. I know that scientifically, Jonah probably couldn't have survived the ordeal so either god miraculously intervened so that he could survive, or god wrote the story as a parable. Either way, it doesn't really matter. The point is that god wanted us to know that story for some reason and it is my job to learn from it.

In definition 4, it mentions inaccuracy. Is the bible we have today accurate? Every translation is a different interpretation of the earliest transcripts or even another translation. We do not have any of the original manuscripts of the bible, so I imagine there might be errors in the translations we currently have available. I do believe that god inspired the bible.

If that were true you wouldn't have to actively recruit and/or brainwash your kids from an early age, it would be a natural process.

And evangelising, as I mentioned previously, would be redundant.

Often times, from my experience, the revelation occurs after god has spoken through one of his people.

[djellison]

That seems rather odd. It's not like people don't know about religion. I can't imagine a person in the western world who isn't aware of the very basic elements of Christianity. So if they wanted 'in' - surely God wouldn't put them on hold until he sent one of the sales team around?

[imac/cheese]

That seems rather odd. It's not like people don't know about religion. I can't imagine a person in the western world who isn't aware of the very basic elements of Christianity. So if they wanted 'in' - surely God wouldn't put them on hold until he sent one of the sales team around?

Having an understanding of the basic elements of Christianity doesn't really mean much. I am sure there are plenty of people on this forum that have a basic understanding of Christianity but really do not understand it. It is obvious by the things people say in their posts in an attempt to make Christianity look irrational or foolish or even detrimental to society. Of course these people do not want "in". They do not see the truth in Christianity and have been put off by all the lies the world tells about it.

[skunk]

Having an understanding of the basic elements of Christianity doesn't really mean much. I am sure there are plenty of people on this forum that have a basic understanding of Christianity but really do not understand it. It is obvious by the things people say in their posts in an attempt to make Christianity look irrational or foolish or even detrimental to society. Of course these people do not want "in". They do not see the truth in Christianity and have been put off by all the lies the world tells about it.It's not so much "the lies the world tells about" Christianity as the lies Christianity tells about the world. Organised Christianity in its various flavours has been notoriously content, if not eager, to be coopted by different warring factions, parties and countries while maintaining the myth of its universalist appeal. Individual Christians and particular congregations may be accepting, unbiased, non-discriminating and peace-loving, but all too often the hierarchy is unable to resist the lure of political influence and/or nationalistic identification.

[PcBgone]

It's not so much "the lies the world tells about" Christianity as the lies Christianity tells about the world. Organised Christianity in its various flavours has been notoriously content, if not eager, to be coopted by different warring factions, parties and countries while maintaining the myth of its universalist appeal. Individual Christians and particular congregations may be accepting, unbiased, non-discriminating and peace-loving, but all too often the hierarchy is unable to resist the lure of political influence and/or nationalistic identification.

I see your point, but there is a difference in what your talking about. Those "warring factions" which I assume is probably a reference to The Crusades, was not being lead by Christ, but being lead by a Man who claimed to follow Christ. The Essence of God and Christ is totally opposite from what you have made "Christians" out to be. You see us proclaiming Christ as Lord, and seeing us as hypocrites. Yet we are like children trying to follow in the footsteps of our father, not quite making every step he makes.

Basically, yes there has been wrong done by the Christian Church. I wont deny that. But how do you go from blaming the believers, to blaming the Almighty for the believers actions? We have free will and make our own choices...

[imac/cheese]

Individual Christians and particular congregations may be accepting, unbiased, non-discriminating and peace-loving, but all too often the hierarchy is unable to resist the lure of political influence and/or nationalistic identification.

Unfortunately, I can agree with that.

[Iscariot]

Having an understanding of the basic elements of Christianity doesn't really mean much. I am sure there are plenty of people on this forum that have a basic understanding of Christianity but really do not understand it. It is obvious by the things people say in their posts in an attempt to make Christianity look irrational or foolish or even detrimental to society. Of course these people do not want "in". They do not see the truth in Christianity and have been put off by all the lies the world tells about it.

The problem is with Christianity, not the world. You've had two thousand years to dispel the "lies," that not enough time? Furthermore, what would the world gain through these lies?

[skunk]

Those "warring factions" which I assume is probably a reference to The Crusades, was not being lead by Christ, but being lead by a Man who claimed to follow Christ.Not only the Crusades, but many many other religious conflicts: Catholics and Huguenots, Catholics and Lutherans, Catholics and Cathars, Catholics and Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants, and, yes, even Catholics against Catholics. Each side in each and every conflict had "God" (and his willing representatives on Earth) on their side. The Essence of God and Christ is totally opposite from what you have made "Christians" out to be.There is something seriously wrong with the message if it can be so easily perverted.
You see us proclaiming Christ as Lord, and seeing us as hypocrites. Yet we are like children trying to follow in the footsteps of our father, not quite making every step he makes.Not good enough, is it? Self-evidently. Would you kill for Jesus?

Basically, yes there has been wrong done by the Christian Church. I wont deny that. But how do you go from blaming the believers, to blaming the Almighty for the believers actions?Not believing there to be an "Almighty", I do not blame him, her or it. I blame the hierarchical structures set up in his, her or its name and used or abused over centuries to gain or consolidate power and wealth.

[steve knight]

the problem is it is easy to say that what you are doing is gods work or in gods name. when has god said don't? when has he kicked butt when someone did something bad in his name?
when you don't fight back it is easy to get used.
so god has become the biggest scapegoat.
you can pretty much do anything in Christianity and ask for forgiveness. this does not exactly encourage good behavior.
reminds of a a story that pissed me off. this teen girl was texting and she ran off the road high a bicyclist and killed him. left the guys family without a dad. a few days later she is in a chat room claiming jesus forgave he. I am glad someone did. but what about the family she destroyed any big deal as long as jesus forgave he she is fine.