Interesting thoughts here...

I'm not really meaning to criticize, although in re-reading I can see where that is so. If someone chooses to believe or not believe, I can understand where they're coming from with their choice while I don't necessarily agree with it. While I can understand where they're coming from, I don't understand how they arrived at their final destination, so to speak. I'm an atheist who still searches for alternatives. I would be willing to change my mind if some credible evidence were to be revealed or some logical argument were to be made without the "leap of faith".

Actually, to stretch the metaphor--a better analogy might be the Sabermetric vs Physical Scouting debate for player projection in baseball.

Some of the agnostics are uncomfortable with evaluating players just on feel, yet at the same time understand the limitations of statistical analysis.

The other agnostics? Well, they don't even follow sports at all.


Yes, now I've done it: we now have religion, politics, mentions of the middle east, HA, FOFC banning policies, and now sabermetrics in this thread. We now need jbmagic to "cowboy up" and say something "cocky and funny" about Maximum Football and affirmative action, before he refuses to accept a bannination...

Wow, didn't see this post last night--probably because it came at the same exact minute as Render's. Sorry about that.

All said that there was evidence as to their actual existence from sources that don't give a hoot about furthering christianity--the first that comes to mind is the Koran. Should I be basing my theories on these historical sources? Not sure if that's where the truth lies either, man. But if you wanna go there, how about the History Channel? I've seen plenty about King David and Jesus--right down to the speculation of the height and skin color of the J man. I've never seen any scholor call their existence into question and I'm wondering where you've gotten the information to form your theories. I'm not saying that the three aforemention people were what christians say they are, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I don't buy into much history from most any source because it's all BS anyway. All of my texts in school were full of lies and crap, so I really can't see why you'd need contemporary historical sources to verify much of anything.

You all still have plenty of time to repent until the end.

That's another thing I don't get about being "saved". Why not just wait till you're on your deathbed to repent everything? Do whatever the hell you want for 75 years and then take it all back. You'll end up in the same place according to them.

Think of it as the difference between saying "I'm sorry" and actually meaning it.

That's also assuming you die of natural causes/have some idea that the end is near.

Not everybody gets to go out in such calm fashion. Or unfortunately with all their wits even if they die of old age.

Wonder if god is willing to make a multi-player trade then.

Anyone else find it interesting that this thread is littered with inidividuals who identify themselves as "non-Christians" trying to tell everyone what Christianity really means and what Christians really do?

No one knows what it really means because it changes all the time. Once society gets sick of it or science proves something wrong, the meanings of it change to fit in with today's standards. That is the beauty of Christianity, if something threatens it, you just change what it is.

Religion in itself is intertwined with society and one does not grow without the other. I wonder if it is perhaps the other way around. Society grows impatient with Christianity and religion in general for refusing to bend and shape to modern trends.

As an aside, you frequently use phrases such as "all, none, or some" when posting. Your point would be more effective if you followed up your broad statements with some form of example.

Very much so. Always happens and it is why I don't participate.

So which one is the real christianity?

The one where Christ is involved. :D

Seriously though, isn't that chart just evidence that civilization has interpreted Christianity and other religions differently during different time periods?

I still read this thread, though I border on whether to respond or just to leave well enough alone with some of the tangential conversations.

I do, however, notice a general disdain from some who just can't stand that fact I am where I am. So far, among other things, I've been told I'm gullible and lacking in intelligence. I'm always slightly surprised when people feel the need to go on the attack, but it comes with the territory, I suppose.

Anyway, thanks to most of you for keeping the conversation civil and without name-calling.

+1 and why I waited until page seven to comment further on the "Christians are dumb" circle-jerk among a few select posters.

I believe that religion holds back society. It can hold it for so long before overwhelming pressure forces it to change.

But that brings up a bigger question. If Christianity is bending to shape modern trends, how can it maintain confidence amongst followers? Shouldn't your religion be what it is and not something that constantly changes?

How has religion held back society? By imputing some moral code that you personally don't believe in?


Again, I'd argue that religion does not change, but individual (shaped by society) perception of religion changes from generation to generation.

Confidence is maintained for the simple reason that believing in something is good for our individual lives. You may disagree with what I believe in, but that does not and should not take away from what I personally believe exists.

Lets look at science. Trying to keep the teaching of evolution out of schools. Not allowing stem cells to be used. Executing those who came up with scientific discoveries that were against the Church beliefs.

Where would science be today if men like Galileo weren't arrested for their discoveries? Or if others had been encouraged to discover the truth and not scared away?

That's just science, and a small sampling of it. I don't think you can look at what the Taliban did to Afghanistan and say that religion didn't hold back society.


But religion does change. It constantly changes to determine what should be taken literally or not. The Earth was 6,000 years old according to early Religious leaders, but that changed as evidence proved otherwise. It was told the Earth was stationary and everything revolved around it. That changed when evidence showed otherwise.

You can look at the Protestant Reformation for some major changes to Christianity. If a religion is the word of God, should it not be the same throughout the years? If I believed in a God, I'd want his rules, his facts to remain consistent throughout history.

To me, it shows that no one seems to agree on what the real christianity is, therefor you have all these different sects.

However, I do get your point though. :)

I don't think anyone was saying anything deragatory. The intelligence level between believers and non-believers has been studied. It's not a negative jab, just something that happens. It also doesn't say that someone who believes isn't intelligent, just that statistically there is a higher probability they aren't.

And gullible is just a matter of opinion and not a completely negative trait. I do believe that in 2009, with all the scientific information available, it would take someone a little gullible to believe in walking on water, talking snakes, Noah's Ark, and so on. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it takes a much more open mind.

I am now convinced that you (just you Rainmaker, not everyone else who may agree with the jist if not the substance of your post) is simply a troll.

You keep citing things as "facts" without providing any evidence behind it. Where are these "studies?" Please find them for me and show me who did them.


I bet I can point to studies that people who do believe in walking on water, talking snakes, Noah's Ark, and so on are also no gullible but also well-rounded people who do not fit the "Jerry-Falwell/Jim Bakker" box that you are trying to shoehorn all Christians into.

I think you are the one that needs the open mind, sir.

I did not know that.

Here you go:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...cbd026da77245c

You can see how religious affiliation declines with education:

http://sda.berkeley.edu:8080/quickta...tKey=gss04%3A1

DanGarion is the one who mentioned it and I simply said there were studies to show it was true. If you disagree with the studies, fine, but don't call me a troll for backing up his statement.

I'm not saying they aren't well-rounded people. Nor am I saying they aren't great people. It wasn't meant to be an insult in anyway. I'm simply saying it takes a much more open and trusting mind to believe in some of that stuff. Isn't that the major component behind faith?

Trust me, I wish everyday that I was more open-minded and truly believed in that stuff. I wish I had faith. But unfortunately I don't.

Sorry but if one wants to believe there is a higher power and that Jesus Christ makes them a better person than more power to them and I am glad they are happy and don't question their intelligence one bit.

Once you start believing in the talking snake or an Ark with a pair of every species in the world or that God has actually spoken to you than you are seriously not very bright or mentally insane. Just like if you believe in unicorns or Robin Hood. The Bible is a collection of stories with great morals, but it didn't happen! I am not certain there isn't a God but I am 100% certain in this.

This has become sort of an atheist circle jerk. Pretty amusing!!! :)

1. Honestly, since I've already said I self-identify as a believer of the dominant religion in my society, why should I care about the rest of these questions? You can chafe at the social norms imposed by the dominant religion in your society all you want. Doesn't matter to be, because I believe. (And if I was on the other end of the question, I'd chafe, too. But since I'm not: who cares?)

2. The whole point of being a believer is that you don't think you're guessing. You believe you're right based on the mix of evidence, anecdote and personal experience you've encountered in your lifetime. Belief doesn't have to be rational to overcome existential angst. It just has to be authentic. My wife heavily self-identifies as a wiccan. I think she's an idiot and that Wicca is the religious equivalent of a Hallmark holiday, but it cures her issues of existential angst.

Hell, we just elected a president based on flimsy promises and hope...with absolutely no scientific or otherwise objective evidence that he's going to be better than the last guy. Belief is a powerful thing.

3. As for the bit about being forced to live by other people's rules just because they subscribe to them: I do that every day of my life. I'd rather wear jeans to work than business attire. I'd rather show up to work drunk half the time rather than sober. I'd like to stand up at boring meetings and say, "This is so fucking stupid. Just make a decision, for God's sake!!!" But I don't. Why? Because I want the benefits that come with the place I work by playing the same game generations of men and women who came before me have played.

Really, when bands of armed religious thugs start showing up at your door because you're having sex with your girlfriend or at my door because I used the word "fuck" on a message board, then I'll be right there with you about what a pain in the ass religious intolerance is.
Until then, people can think what they want about how I live my life. They can even tell me how wrong it is and risk me telling them they're both an idiot and rude. (I've got plenty of practice at this, since I'm a smoker. You know they don't let me smoke in my office? I have to go outside. In the cold! Not only that, I have to completely leave my employer's property and walk around the block or go sit in my car -- all because some psycho yahoo's decided that smoking is inappropriate. There's even some people who are pushing legislation to give the state the ability to take my kids out of my home because I might dare to smoke around them...so, you tell me, which should I be worried about more? Public health nazis who want to take away my kids or people who look down their nose at me because they think I'm on my way to hell because I use the word "fuck" or don't go to church often enough?)

OK, thinking purely from a historical perspective rather than a religious one, contemporary historical sources are the single most important piece of evidence used to determine whether something actually happened. A lot of what made it in to the NT was written, at a generous estimate, several decades after the events they describe. The Koran was put to paper a hell of along time after the events of the NT. Christianity was established a long time before the rise of Islam.

The NT contains a lot of spectacular stories (particularly those involving Jesus directly), yet none can be verified from other sources excluding the NT (which, itself, is not contemporary). This includes the very person of Jesus, Mary, etc. This is completely different from other historical figures such as, to use a common example, Caesar, with whom we have things like entire buildings errected during his life and in his name, writings from contemporary historians, coins, etc.

And it's not that it's because there just doesn't exist sources from that region of the world during that time period. Philo Judaeus was a Jewish historian who lived roughly 20 BC through 50 AD. Pliny the Elder was another historian who lived 20ishAD through 70AD. Seneca was 4 BC through 65 AD. None of their writings mention Jesus even once, which is, even a believer would have to admit, quite extraordinairy, especially given their magnitude.

The fact that your school history books (and especially the "documentaries" you see on the History Channel, as anyone who knows anything about the topics they discuss will no doubt agree with) were full of crap is EXACTLY why you need to look at contemporary sources to try and get to the truth of the matter.

Again to use Japanese history (sorry, but it's my main interest ;) ), there are a series of 'war tales' (gunki monogatari) that were, for many centuries, basically considered history books. The two most imporant ones, the Heike Monogatari and the Taiheiki, were originally put to paper not long after the events they describe (perhaps even during), but underwent modifications and additions for perhaps a century or more until they reached their current form. Sounds familiar right.

It was only much more recently that contemporary diaries, temple records, etc. were cross-checked with events from these war tales, that it was discovered that what actually happened did not, in a lot of cases, match up with what was written in these tales. Characters were invented, real people were positioned in places we know that they couldn't have been, and the victories and defeats of entire armies was credited to prayers and various other spectacular feats, when we now know they had a much more humble cause.

These war tales date from the 12th and 14th centuries. How much worse for something that is 2,000 years old?

And, BTW, I'm not actually claiming that Jesus and his crew didn't exist. I don't know for sure one way or the other, but I consider it extremely doubtful that the stories of his life would arise from nowhere. I do think that it's impossible to know what the Historical Jesus would have been like. Obviously I think that the tales in the NT are incredibly exaggerated and in many cases completely fabricated.

If there was even a single piece of contemporary evidence that correlated with one of the fantastic events from the NT, I'd be forced to give some serious thought to my stance on Christianity. But then, the same is true for every major religion that is filled with stories no less amazing than those in the NT, with the very same lack of contemporary evidence.

And may our seed sow the way to enlightenment. ;)

I agree with some of what you say. I think the public health nazis are just as bad as the creationist nazis. I guess what bothers me more about religion is that at least the public health nazis are basing their evidence off something real. Despite their annoyances, they are at least trying to prevent someone from hurting someone else.

But when people try to change our science books to include creationism and question evolution, it makes our society stupid. When you ban stem cell research, it potentially harms the future health of people. When you ban gay marriage, you discriminate against someone. So yes, the health nazis do go beyond what they should and interfere in my life, but at least they aren't making the country less safe and stupid.

I don't really care about what someone believes. My Aunt and Uncle are a former Priest and Nun who I get along with great. I'm not about to get them into the hardcore porn market, and they're not going to get me to Church on Sundays. Live and let live is what we should all go by. I only get upset when a person's personal beliefs infringe on my rights to do something. It doesn't matter to me whether they are doing it because they don't want me to get cancer or because their fairy tale said so.

What happens if they don't?

Ah, I see where you're coming from. I'm not a creationist or a young-earther. I'm not even really an Intelligent Design guy. I do believe that God created the universe via the mechanism of the Big Bang and let it unwind via the mechanism of evolution...exactly as scientific understanding and research has explained it.

(My father is, but we agree to disagree, as we do with abortion, gay rights and just about every other polarizing/politicized topic.)

Then again, I also believe that the book of Jonah is an obvious morality play (rather than a true story), that Genesis is largely a collection of competing creation myths that had cultural value to a bedouin people and has been largely misinterpreted by Western Civilization and that a literalist/fundamentalist reading of the Bible robs it of the best of its wisdom.

But at the end of the day, what I believe most is that God is bigger than my imagination, that he is looking farther ahead and with more wisdom than I can fathom, and that the best part of faith is believing that he is capable of hashing all of this shit out both to his satisfaction and in a way that will ultimately be better for me than anything I could have planned out for myself, my species or my world. I'm more than content to accept the notion that he knows what he's doing, even if I don't understand it.

I also believe that at least half of what I think about "who God is" and "how God does his business" is completely wrong. And that's okay, because if God is only as smart as I am -- or even only as smart as 2,000 years of collected theological wisdom -- he's not really the sort of God I want to follow, anyway.

That is a pretty safe position to take. It may be quite a while before we figure out what happened before that, so you won't have to completely revise your theological stance for a while (if ever in your lifetime). Too bad God didn't tell the Pope or Jesus those kinds of things a long time ago, it might have made a big difference. Imagine the jump we could have made from a science perspective if we did not have to struggle for these scientific gains over the years.

Our of curiosity, for anyone reading this thread, when did the Catholics decide they were going along with evolution? Did they first present the theory as the word of God and the scientists were able to make sense of it? Or was the scientific evidence mounting before God finally came clean about it? Or has God been silent on the matter completely and the Pope decided to make up his own mind about it?

Nah. The beauty of starting with the belief that God did it means that I can update my mechanisms as often as the scientific community does. It's not that big a deal to assume we'll know more tomorrow than we did today. If I can revise my thinking about genetics every time there's a breakthrough without deciding I have to throw out the entire collected knowledge base of the Scientific Revolution, then making this change is a piece of cake.

People used to think that x-rays were safe. I didn't have to totally revise my view of scientific thought and the whole corpus of Western knowledge when they changed their mind on that.

RainMaker, you've pretty much summed up how I feel. Well done.

Personally for me, as an atheist, I don't wish for the irradication of all religions, just the irradication of it interfering with other peoples lives. And that's goes for any religion, not just christianity.

This is actually something I've discussed at length with my wife because she believes in an unchanging church/bible where as I believe Christianity should evolve and has done so previously.

For instance the obvious Old/New Testament, but even since then there are huge changes in interpretation.

For instance Pigs were off the menu according to the bible, but thats ok because people have rationalised that they were banned because the meat couldn't be kept safely in those days but can now.

Showing that mankind has effectively over-ruled what was placed down.

I've argued with my wife that a similar stance should be taken regarding homosexuals/gay marriage and suchlike - in biblical times dying out was a big problem for any race and as such breeding was a big thing to encourage ... hence disliking homosexuality and the various passages about breeding etc.

These days over-population is more of an issue so surely in a similar way to the whole pork thing the Christian church should just get over itself and let people live life according to their believed sexuality, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone and makes them happy whats the big deal?

(please note that in many churches in England it ISNT a big deal at all - the Anglican church for instance has homosexual clergy men; however since moving to America I've noted a very strong anti-gay aspect to sermons at several chruches I've attended - why is it so much stronger a sentiment here than in Europe?)

So, as God becomes responsible for less and less as the years go by, is it even reasonable that there will always be something to attribute to God? I know the answer is that this is a moving target that will always be moved to just beyond what we already know, thereby ensuring that something shall always be attributable to a deity.

PS - Just to add something light hearted into the thread in case anyone hasn't seen it bofore .... Jesus & the terminator together in the ultimate action movie ...
Terminator & Jesus - Video

I don't see how God becomes responsible for less and less. In my view, he set the mechanism up from the start and it worked the way he set it up. We're just uncovering the details as we go along.

You seem to be positing a view similar to the idea that when FOF runs a sim, it's really Jim in the guts of your computer manipulating every play. I tend to think Jim just wrote the code and the game behaves the way he designed it to behave.

As we unravel how some of those things work and develop strategies to understand/explain/account for them so we can use them to our benefit, we're not changing the code...we're just understanding better how the game works, and through that vehicle, getting a small glimpse into how Jim thinks.

Thus, when the combine numbers turn out to mean something completely different than I thought they meant, I don't suddenly decide that FOF is a piece of crap. I just factor the new understanding into my draft strategy.

I think part of the problem is that this country has a lot of Puritanical beliefs that are still present. That's why sex is so taboo as is nudity here in America. I mean, look at the anuerisms people had when Janet Jackson's COVERED nipple was exposed during a Super Bowl half time show.

I hate to say this, but, I just don't think Americans as a whole, are very open minded or tolerant of other people's beliefs or ways of life and are very scared of progressive changes, plus a healthy dose of fear mongering and you get the anti-gay sentiment we Americans have proudly displayed time and time again.

This is just my opinion, but, I don't think it's far off. Someone else may be able to explain it a little bit more eloquently than I can.

I guess my confusion would be as to "what's the point?". If you aren't going to agree with what the Bible says, not going to follow it's rules, and not going to believe in what it says, why be a Christian? It just seems hypocritical to say you are a Christian but you don't agree with anything that it stands for.

Excellent!

You do not know that less and less has been attributed to God (and deities in general) as our scientific understanding has grown? I understand this may not be true of your own personal view, but it is true that people once attributed a whole lot to God (or some deity).

No cake and ice cream.

Surprise! I love where the sources came from. Obvious bias there.


True, and I like to think that my life will be happier because I believe in happiness and being a good person. But since we can't define what a good person is because we can't 'see" good, we should just stop trying, I guess.

I have made this point a couple times in the thread. Not sure if you attribute this to God or not but why couldn't you thank yourself for being happy? This is my beef with Tarcone. He did it through his own strength and free will and maybe the help of his friends. That is even more incredible and a purpose to celebrate than some deity randomly choosing to speak to him.

So who has the better chance in the "afterlife"?

Person A who does not submit to the belief of god but lives a good life, including helping others along the way.

or

Person B who is a mass murderer but conveniently "finds god" shortly before his execution and asks to be forgiven for those sins.


I only want to believe in a god if the answer is person A. If the answer is person B that means that god is so egotistical that we must "believe and worship" in order to make it into his little afterlife club.

Why does it have to be black and white? Why can't I be happy because of my own decisions AND because I feel like God/Christ has an influence in my life.

That's the fun of free-will, my friend.

Christianity definitely says B.

I also find that extremely off-putting, but hey, if there's a god, I don't know why we have this assumption that he's "good". God could be an egotistical, vengeful, mean god. But you still better worship him (if you believed in such a thing).

My own "personal" belief is that belief in God is professed through actions, not words.

Then again, I also believe that Catholic ideology has taken this too literally into thinking that individuals are saved through good works AND faith. I do believe that the "mass murderer" can be "saved" so to speak, but it's not as simple as shouting "I BELIEVE!" on your death bed. It's a peace you yourself have to make with God. Also, I do believe there is an atoning for your sins on Earth, but what that is is beyond our human comprehension.

Further, I do believe that a "supreme" being has the ability to long within our true hearts and go beyond our human words/actions. This is why it is hard to believe "stories" about walking on water, turning water into wine, etc. Human beings learn through comparison. For those to which faith alone is not enough, the inability to see or witness causes them to not believe.

For this reason, people are critical of God/religion/etc. because it is unexplainable by our human terms and rationale, yet that is all we have to work on while here on Earth.

As an aside, I also believe that people whom you would consider "non-Christians" can also be "saved" without accepting Christ. My reasoning is that the "superior being" is superior enough to be able to fight through cultural barriers that we as humans set up. Therefore, individuals can unknowingly be led by "Christ/God-like" actions without ever actually professing their belief in Christ/God.

But it's all about the true heart, and that is something that neither you nor I can judge.

I guess you can. However post #1 of this thread basically states that he could not do it on his own and neither will any of us if we don't find Jesus. So I am kind of debating on that premise and not with you or CraigSca who may have more liberal views.

Sorry for quoting you and not making that clear.

What is bias?

I think it's this:

Again, who cares what "people" think? I'm only responsible for what I think, not some monolithic mass of "people". As far as I'm concerned, "people" ten years from now can give up on God completely. Them changing their minds isn't going to matter one whit to me.

I'm not disagreeing with you, of course. I just know that ultimately I'm only responsible for what I think and believe. Worrying about what other people think just ends up being a pain in my ass. :lol:

Ultimately, I figure that religion has survived at least 10,000 years of human social evolution, including the relatively short period since the Scientific Revolution. It clearly fills some innate need in our species by functioning as a lens through which we can view, interpret and understand both the physical world and our place in it. Science isn't going to change that. Science doesn't even *try* to change that. It's asking a completely different set of questions.

The problem, as I see it, is that there are too many people on all sides of the question (not FOFC people, but the same "people" as above) who get way too pissed off about other people's opinions. If we were talking about most anything other than religion, we'd be more than happy to let dumbasses be dumbasses for whatever dumbass reason they selected. My take on religious disagreements is really that simple: If you (not you personally, but "people") want to be a dumbass, go for it.

The only job I have in the entire universe is to live my life in such a way that I'm not a dumbass in my own eyes.

I fully agree with the concept of letting people believe whatever view they choose when it comes to religion. The problem is that there are way too many religious people that try to force their view upon others. They restrict the rights of people for reasons that have only to do with their religious views. They decide that others are subhuman purely because they do not share the same religious views.

Drake is one of my favorite people in FOFC.

What I hear you really meaning is that non-religious types need to do a better job of organizing yourselves and getting a social agenda in place. That's where organized religion kicks your ass. Believers meet at least once a week to hash out what they believe and what they're going to do about it. We're legitimately excited enough about what we believe (i.e., our agenda, if you will) to set apart time every week to work on it, to plan, to figure out the best way to push our ideas into the social fabric.

Most other things people believe in, you're lucky if you can get people to show up for meetings once a month.

Y'all need to work on your strategerie. We've already claimed the Hell & Damnation motivator for our constituency, so you've got your work cut out for you.

I heart you.

So very true Drake. Trying to get atheists to all agree on something is like herding cats.

Drake, I hope you were in church last Sunday as they passed out the list of people we are to consider subhuman. I can forward you a copy if you need it.

No, not at all. What I am saying is exactly what I said. Religious people force their views upon others. Not that they are better organized at all. I doubt few people would really have a big problem with religion if it was a personal thing. Unfortunately, it has been used as an excuse to oppress others. That is a flaw in the character of religious people, not a flaw in those who don't join in.

.

You mean, posts like these didn't do it for ya?

"Man U finish behind Arse!?! Game's broke!"
"Marc, were you and the lads pissed while makin' this shite?"
"How come you guys can't get the MLS right?"
"Not fair! Brought in Kaka, Robinho, Roons, Lamps, & Ronaldo and Tevez demands a transfer over playing time?!? What gives, Marc?"
"Will someone please, please, PLEASE, finally respond about the offside bug?"
"New tac! Guaranteed Euro Champs!!!"
"WTH? Why isn't Bulgaria third division playable?!?"
"This patch bloody blows!"
"I sat the bench on the reserve squad for my town club last season? Why'm I not in the game?"
"Don't buy, it's crap!"
"Training's wonked!"
"How come six months into game, it says I have to buy to go on?"

:D

Atheists are not going to get together. They don't believe in a God, they don't believe in a religion. Sitting around and discussing it would be silly. It's akin to a group of people who don't collect baseball cards getting together for gatherings.

Plus, Atheists don't really have a social agenda. They just don't want decisions that effect them to be based on fairy tales.

My belief is that if there is a God, and if there is a heaven, worship and that other stuff would have no factor in going to heaven. I just don't see how it could be fair to judge people who have all had different upbringings and access to information. A child who grows up in some rural part of Africa may never see a bible in his entire life, never know of a church, and never hear the name Jesus. So how could God judge him?

So if there is a God, I think he would simply judge a person by what they did in their life. Were they a good person, did they help others, did they make the quality of lives better for those that they came in contact with. I don't think I'd want to know a God who makes his decisions based on how many times you went to Church or whether you participated in a ceremony.

I believe if a God existed, there would be no heaven. We would simply be a piece of art to him. A giant Sim City of sorts. I doubt he'd be human or have a preference toward humans. He'd simply be an entity who started the universe and let the chips fall where they may. He would not care what you did in your daily lives, and he would not control it. When I turn on the news and see a 4 year old snatched from her home, raped, and murdered, it is clear to me that a God could not have control of our actions.

In defense of religion, I think everyone in one way or another forces their views on others. Democrats out there want us to fund welfare programs and raise minimum wages. Republicans want to send our kids to war for questionable reasons. You have groups like MADD who pushed to have the drinking law raised. Groups like PETA who don't want you eating meat. People are telling us where we can smoke and what we can cook in our restaurants.

I think religion gets a much tougher time because some of their views are outdated. Telling people that being gay is a choice and will destroy families. Telling schools not to teach basic sex education. Telling kids not to take birth control. Telling kids the Earth is 6,000 years old. If religious views weren't as outdated, I think most would treat them like any other group.

America is far more fundamentalist than most of the Christian countries in Europe with regards to this sort of thing.

Its very common here for people to thank God and indeed most people don't believe you'd get elected as president without including some Christian stance in your campaign.

In England its the reverse - make a big thing about 'being saved' and 'talking with God regularly' and you wouldn't have a hope in heck of being made Prime Minister, as a society we prefer the person with the big red button to make decisions himself based on earthly information and common sense rather than word from above.

With regards to non-religious groups being better organised this is also more common in England I believe. For instance most villages/towns have non-religious groups (normally nominally business related) which try and do 'good' for the area they're based in, generally they're at least as active as churches and often more so.

Also on the promotional front there has just been an Aetheist bus campaign which has seriously gotten some churches knickers in a twist (which has helped the campaign considerably):
Atheist Bus - Official Website

The SI boards are great for feedback on our games, giving inspiration for new versions and also importantly keeping us grounded :D

Indeed. I have followed the English Premiership pretty much since it started (not as closely every year, but to some degree every year since it was formed), and I don't think I have ever read about ANYBODY thanking God for winning it or avoiding relegation. It seems to be quite the American thing to thank God for success in professional sports, or pretty much anything that goes their way (winning the Lottery, winning a pass-throwing competition during half-time, etc). It has always struck me as odd that anyone presumes that God would even care about such mundane things when people are being murdered, raped, struck down with cancer, etc.

I can't speak for winning the lottery or anything, but it's my interpretation that athletes generally thank God for the gifts, talents, discipline, etc., that got them where they are today. The fact that they converted on the opportunity is just icing on the cake.

I've mentioned this in an earlier thread and this by no means will satisfy you. But our lives on earth are a mere pittance when it comes to eternity. No, I can't explain away why God would let bad things happen to "good" people, but I will say that God gives us the opportunity for a life eternal with Him as outlined in the Bible. If you bear with me for a moment, surely you'll agree that eternal happiness is much more important than the means by which death occurs.

Assuming such a thing exists, I suppose. Since nobody inside that "eternal happiness" has yet been able to communicate with us in a way that can really be documented and held up as proof, and since they're not able to assist their loved ones in getting there (in any way that can be proven/demonstrated), it doesn't sound like "eternal happiness" to me. They get to spend eternity wondering if those they loved make the grade and get to join them. It begins to sound like some other mythological place, a place that some call Hell.

Would you not also agree however that religions have most commonly been created and used/adopted by ruling classes in order to supress and control people within a society?

As such using an untestable 'heaven/hell' scenario is very useful as it puts off giving people something nice in the real-world with the promise of something after death.

(this doesn't mean that any particular religion is invalid obviously - but it shows why many intelligent people have a hard time taking them seriously when they've been used for ill purposes for so long - heck even today in America religions are used on a daily basis by politicians and sportsmen to curry favour imho - something which people 'praise' the individuals themselves for, even when their 'works' often show little to validate their supposed beliefs)

And thus my first sentence in my reply to you.

Well, I don't know if they've mostly been created to do that, but I will agree that when religion is in human hands (which, by definition it can't help be) there is, unfortunately, human frailty added to the mix. It's a conundrum, certainly. However, if people want to use religion for their own benefit, or to curry favor, than that's on them.

(sorry shouldn't have used 'created' really, bad choice - possibly 'influenced' might have been a less arguementative terms)

Very few religions remain as they were initally intended, for instance most Christians accept that the religion 'created' many celebrations and indeed changed the date of its founders birth (ie. Christmas is at the wrong time of year) just to help ease the conversions of pagans during its early days.

Another example of this can be found where the bible stresses 'No Idols' yet churches generally have loads of the darn things scattered about - images of Jesus (which is borderline acceptable - but wasn't what it seems he'd have really wanted imho) but also in Catholic churches practically an entire army of saints and suchlike to be prayed to (which is exactly what the bible says to avoid).

Oh yeah, I fully understand and acknowledge the changing of dates and certainly religion rightly or wrongly has been influenced by humans.

As far as idols are concerned I'm right on board with the Bible and personally don't subscribe to them.

My belief is that there is a God, but our concept of God is almost entirely self-serving (as man is known to do.) Is the Bible the actual & literal word of God, as told to certain individuals who word-for-word noted his exact prophesy, or is it the word of man trying to make life better through belief? I say the later, but that doesn't mean that it is not the word of God in spirit and that He gave these individuals the ability and tools to write what would be good for man.

What is God? We get the image of an old man, but considering that God is not man, who is to say? God's entire set of values may not be even close to our own. It is entirely possible that we are like an ant farm to him. A society that he wants to succeed, but sits back and allows to function on its own. It's also possible that He has the greatest sense of humor ever, and every time we catch ourselves looking stupid for no reason whatsoever saying "why me?" he's getting a good laugh!

What of Jesus? Is he the literal son of God, placed in the womb of a virgin? Or was that a story meant to make an extraordinary man seem mystical to those who need something more than a great man to follow? Whether the story that showed up centuries later of virgin birth is true or not it does not negate the impact of the teachings of one man who wanted to help people have a closer relationship to God.

All of these are examples of the phenomenon of "syncretization" in religion--where religious practices of two religions are melded or one co-opts the other. Christmas is one example where well-established pagan practices were co-opted to honor Christianity's founder. Could be a way to ease new converts into Christianity, or it could just have been practices that refused to die. The elevation of the Virgin Mary to near-godlike status is often thought of as a manifestation of worship of the Mother Goddess by Western & Northern European pagans. Another well-known example is the continued worship of Mayan gods, who are now thought of as "saints" by Mayan converts to Catholicism.

Again, this is not unique to Christianity--the example of the combination of Buddhism and indigenous religion in Japan (which is also quite common in the expression of religion throughout East and Southeast Asia), was mentioned before.

I am pretty sure we are building a wall to keep the Mayans out of this country though, so we should be pretty safe from those people.

Bearing with you, yes eternity is more important than the means of death.

But you can't just skip over the why question.

Why would a God who is loving, caring, good, and omnipotent allow good people to get cancer? Why would such a God allow toddlers to get cancer? Why would such a God allow infants to get cancer? If these people are good and are going to be allowed into Heaven for eternity, then what purpose does allowing them to suffer like that serve?

And sorry, but "we can't understand God who is so great" doesn't work. If God controls everything, then he gave me this brain that refuses to accept such copouts as a reasonable answer. And that's all it is, a copout.

To thine own self be true, in other words.

My biggest problem with this philosophy is that it allows us to set the bar as low as we want. Your only job is to make sure you don't think of yourself as a dumbass? How difficult is that, and are we not more inclined to lower our standards in order for us not to feel like a dumbass?

You don't need religion in order to lead a virtuous life, but I believe you almost certainly need something more than just your own internal moral compass.

Why?

I don't know. God never promised a 24-hour party for believers. It would nice if it were that easy, but it's not.

God gave you the ability to make a choice, and you've made it. Nothing in the world I could say or do to make you think otherwise.

Is there any proof that God ever promised anything? Since it is a matter of 'faith' in 'believing' in God's existence anyway, it seems unlikely that a promise of anything really exists either. It would also be a matter of 'faith' as to whether some promise was given, and apparently can be subject to personal interpretation.

Because we have an amazing ability to deny that we're engaging in self-destructive (or simply destructive) behavior.

Religious texts (and more importantly religious beliefs) can help us become more self-aware of our behavior. But in the absence of religious beliefs, I think philosophy becomes that much more important.

To that end, I wish atheists really would get together on a Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning to talk about philosophical matters. Sociologically speaking, I think one of the most beneficial things about being religious is being a member of a community. Atheists, by and large, are always going to be missing out on a communal celebration of shared beliefs, values, and spiritual growth... and no man is an island.

According to the Bible the ticket to heaven is faith in Jesus as your savior. I guess that counts as a promise (?).

Just based on my own experience that is what any circle of friends provides in it's own way. Oft times most any kind of socializing will include at least some serious discussions of beliefs, values and the like.

When I went to church growing up, we never really had any contact with others in the congregation outside of Mass.

But YMMV.

I agree that atheists do need to get together, but, not for the reasons you mention. We need to get together to stop religion from trying to be force fed to the citizens via legislation and in our public schools.

It seems to me, your statement of 'being a member of a community', you feel that it only exists if you are religious. I could be wrong, but that's what I got from your statement.

If I saw a person on the street that needed help, I would help them, not because I'm an atheist, but, because that's a fellow human being. Just because I am without faith and do not belive in a god or gods, does not mean that I am without compassion or morals or a sense of community.

As mentioned by craigsca the act of accepting Jesus as our savior does not suddenly clear our lives of hardship. Suffering happens because we live in a fallen world - thanks to original sin in the Garden of Eden. Our world is flawed, people are flawed, our bodies are flawed. Being saved gives us assurance that we will be in a perfected state for eternity. But for our time on Earth, we know things won't always be good. We also know that by accepting Christ we will open ourselves up to persecution from non-believers.

A key component of the Christian worldview is that suffering, hardship, personal struggles, etc, have meaning. Out of suffering can come positive things - sometimes the benefits are for that person, other times the struggle benefits others. People of strong Christian faith have the peace that comes with the understanding that most events are not random - there's some purpose to it all. We may not know in this life but we will later.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Really? God gave me the ability to choose?

Well, if your God construct is omniscient, then your sentence makes no sense in my reality. Because if God is omniscient then he knows what I'm going to choose, so it's not really a choice.

But that's a whole 'nother thread. ;)

More relevant to this thread, you, like any person attempting to explain the Christian God, have had to resort to "I don't know, but God is perfect." And that's fine. You've made a choice to believe in the biblical Christian God. I would recommend not bothering to attempt logical explanations because the concept is completely illogical. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, but it is indefensible in a logical discussion.

I listen to the Atheist Experience podcast which is done almost every Sunday. While I don't quite agree with all of their beliefs, etc., it seems as if they make an attempt to do good things for society (like provide food to the poor, organize blood drives). I'm sure that they have an ulterior motive of proving that you don't need religion to do good things, so their actions are entirely altruistic. They're based in the Austin area and go to Threadgills after every show.

I disagree with you partially. Religion assists in providing a set of morals, but it's doubtful that you would help a person on the street if it weren't for something else in your life. Your parents, maybe.

I see it in my kids and how they don't help each other. We've taught them otherwise, but they don't naturally lean towards it.

I understand what you're saying, but, I also see it as; you don't need religion to have morals, you need some sort of guidance. The guidance for your kids, is you and your wife. Though, I wouldn't doubt that your kids think that it IS the word of god coming from you. ;)

Can you get good morals from a religion? Yes.
Is a religion required to get good morals? No.

True, but you'll never know what that choice is that's been pre-destined for you. But you're right, that's probably a whole 'nother thread.


Correct. Is that because it's a load of hooey or is it because logic just doesn't fit when you're speaking of an all-powerful being that is difficult to comprehend from the human point of view?

I don't think it has to be because one man's faith is another man's hooey (as proved over and over in this thread).

More that faith and logic are extremely difficult to correlate in any circumstance.