First, apologized for the delayed response. Work and lunch called. ;)

"Well explain to me why religious beliefs are held to a smoking gun principle then? How does one know that Allah/Shiva/Zeus does not exist? What of the cures to people that there is no medical explanation for? What about the sites where people have documented miracles taking place? I realize there are debates over how the Koran/Vedas/Iliad is translated but did none of those things ever happen?"

You see the problem.

There is a huge difference, evidence-wise, between believing in some vague, deistic, "god-of-the-gaps", and believing in a specific religious tradition. I can only speak for myself, but I don't hold religious beliefs to a smoking gun principle. I hold them to the same test I use in evaluating every other claim to knowlegde I encounter in my life: logical conclusions based on observable evidence.

To me, it's not just that there is no "smoking gun" in favor of religious claims, it's that there is no evidence AT ALL in their favor. Saying "goddidit" in these situations is no different from saying "it was magic" (and trust me, after playing Dungeons and Dragons since I was 6 years old, nothing would make me happier. ;) )

Now see, this is exactly my point, IF god were to actually appear before me I couldn't really deny him now could I? He would be there. As someone quoted eariler, you can't prove something DOESN'T exist. but you certainly can prove if something DOES. If something is there and real, it exists. FAITH on the other hand doesn't allow that proof, it requires blind acceptance of something that cannot BE proven.

That is what I just can't come to grips with in my life. Blind Faith is acceptance of ignorance. Ignorance is not acceptable.

Well to take the side of all these descriptions, as I say above, if there is indeed a God creator of the Universe it would seem necessary that God is greater than the universe, for a something can not create something greater. To look at this from the "God as a person" point of view, if God created the universe as greater than himself, how could he run things? Would be pretty tough. So basically as a human exsisting as a speck of dust in the wind of a universe who's sum doesn't even equal God, would not our brains be incapable of fully understanding the real world of God? Therefore it would seem necessary(edit: or at least understandable) that our understanding of God(edit: even if given by some voice of God) be variable and, well, odd.

I think faith is so powerful because its love. Its a love for God. Two people could see a woman - one might think she's ugly, dumb and has stupid interests while the other might think she's the closest thing to perfection on earth. Why? How can you explain how one person can think such a profoundly different thing than another about the same person?

Can you explain love? Can you describe it? If you ask for 100 descriptions you might get 100 different answers. Do some people look at the person in love and think he's an idiot for being with that woman? Sure but to him being with that woman gives him happiness, comfort, security, safety and love. I think having faith is the same thing - its a love for God that gives you those things in your life. Why doesn't everyone have faith then? Why doesn't everyone have love? For some people it just doesn't bring those things so they don't understand why other people can find it so great and so powerful.

If they're not in conflict, then what do you mean by that?

I'm not going to talk about evolution because I'm not a scientist. For the most part I accept evolution, although I think there is still a lot of controversy in the scientific community as to how it works and how much we know.

Science tells us about the world we live in. On the other hand, God IS the world we live in, and is also OUTSIDE the world we live in. God defies logic, reason, comprehension.

Please note: I TYPE IN CAPS to stress individual words, not to show emotion here. I am seriously seeking personal understanding of the whole faith thing, so please don't let my own meager attempts to grasp a concept and iterate my own feelings below cause outrage..I'm not aiming to do so.
**********************************************************


Again, LOVE at least has a very REAL focus, how can you LOVE something that isn't real? line up everything you love in a row, add GOD to that row, now how many of those things are real viable items? All but GOD.

How can that be justified? It honestly sounds like a mental illness more than love. There is a part of me that this very idea frightens. To love something you can't touch or see or feel, to LOVE the imaginary, is a definition of Mental distress.

Please, i really am trying to understand this, but whenever an answer comes up it just sounds like believing Merlin is going to conjure a dragon for me. I need more, but I honestly don't know where to find it.

But if you don't accept that God exists how can He appear before you? All that appears before you is someone who says he is God but if you don't believe there is a God then why would you believe him? If you do believe him to be God then it must be you accept the existence of God and that you have faith that God exists.

How about harmony and or existence beyond our known universe? I mean you get down to the big bang and the singularity that lead up to it. Was it just there? How did it get there? Monotheistic Gods are almost always the creator, its easy(not saying its the truth) to believe that all this had to be created. And science can't disprove the notion. Its hard not to love the thing that created you, no? Unless you are self hating of your existence to the infinite level.

You have stated that you don't have a real problem with evolution, but the VAST majority of believers do, that was where my comments were aimed.

I don't accept your last sentence. Nothing is beyond comprehension, humanity may be slow on the uptake, but given time humans come to discrern and even accept and comprehend things quite readily.To say GOD is incomprehensible is a very easy avoidance mechanism to use instead of answering questions or even having an interest in answering them.

I'm a cynic, I truly believe that organized religion as it currently stands is little more than a control system. I won't argue that religious people CAN and DO do many good things, but that is people doing things, not the religion.

Why is there a requirement to love that wich created you? I can understand and accept such creation, that does not require love. It simply IS. There is nothing emotionally required of that.

I am certainly open to a universe that WAS created by a "god", I can accept perhaps that something or someone triggered the BIG BANG and the universe has moved on since then. I find it rather rediculous that in a universe so UNDENIABLY vast that such a figure would dain to spend his time on the third rock from the sun. its this arrogance that pushes me away from religion as a whole. or one of the things at least. The hypocrasy is another. but thats for another discussion.

He must present to me two forms of picture I.D. and a water or electric bill with his home mailing address on it. Then he can get a membership card....er, I will believe him.
;)

Well, that is our divide then. I accept that there is that that I will never be able to comprehend (starting with my checkbook); you refuse to accept that.

I see God in all things.

That whole post makes no sense, you're requiring belief PRIOR to physical viewing, thats not realistic in any sense.

If GOD is real he CAN appear before me, it requires no belief on my part for that to happen, if he is in FACT a real being he can appear before anyone he wishes, be they believer or not. He can also offer enough to convince someone that he IS in fact GOD. This is an assumption I made when I say "If he appeared" If he exists, and he is all powerful as FAITH persistantly suggests, he would have no trouble connvincing me of his reality.

You're argument here is faulty.

If your wife dies do you stop loving her? You can't line her up in a row anymore - she's not a real viable item - she's physically gone from the Earth. After she is dead your wife no longer exists in the physical world yet you can still love her. You can no longer touch, see or feel her but you can still love her. Is the only reason you love her because you can prove she existed? Other women exist - do you love them and not your wife cause she no longer exists?

Love is a feeling - you can't bottle it and sell it the same as faith is a feeling. If you love something or someone you feel a special way about it - a way other people do not. Some people may not be able to comprehend how you can love something or someone. Some people may say love doesn't exist - does it? Can you prove that love really exists or is there just some chemical reaction in your body to certain items or people? If its just a chemical reaction then its not love - its a chemical reaction. If love is just a chemical reaction then maybe love doesn't exist. But lots of people say they have love. You could show them tests that try to prove love is just a series of chemical reactions but they may not believe you because they feel those reactions are caused by love - not by your body.

I hope you get what Im getting at - how can you define something like that? If I believe to be in love am I? What if there aren't enough reactions in my body to really be "in love" does that mean I'm not in love even though I think I am? If I think I am aren't I in love regardless of whether I am or not? "I think therefore I am", right? If I think God exists then He does - if you don't think so he doesn't. If I think I love a woman then I do - if you don't think you love a woman then you don't, right?

Doesn't that seem a bit limiting to you? you accept that you cannot go beyond your current limitations? It is my belief that humanity can and will overcome its obstacles and shortcomings (as evidenced by our continued existance and survival) that gives me the thing we all need to survive...Hope.

Again you are using a fallacy in your argument, If my wife dies, she is still there, her body lies within the coffin that we bury her in. in time she may degrade to a pile of dust, yet that dust is still VERY real and viable.

Again, you can't prove something DOESN'T exist, but I sure can prove what DOES, my dead wife certainly DOES exist, does GOD?

this is where I come up short of being able to understand the "love of God" thing, God in not a real and viable thing, GOD is a concept a "dream of what some wish him to be" so to speak, and as such he is imaginary. And loving the imaginary doesn't seem healthy to me.

love is indeed a feeling, I'm not arguing what love is, I'm saying you can't LOVE something that doesn't exist. If someday we can prove that GOD exists, I'll be completely able to accept the "love of GOD"

Well, accepting one's limitations is an important part of maximizing one's potential. This is not a theological argument; this is a common sense philosophy that even applies to, for example, playing FOF.

One area where I differ from most Christians is in their essentially pessimistic view of human nature; I think not enough is made of the fact that we reflect and embody the divine spark. But this is a tangential argument that perhaps doesn't interest you.

I certainly am very optimistic about mankind. I think we are kinder to one another than we were 100 years ago; I think in 100 years we will be that much kinder. I think in the same way that we can engineer computers to be smarter and smarter, we will soon be able to engineer our own brains to be smarter and smarter.

But God exists, not just *in* the world we live in, but *outside* the world we live in. That is an obstacle we just can't conquer.

How do you KNOW this. Its obviously not something you can PROVE, so..To accept something you don't have a valid and reliable reasonging for rings of training and manipulation. Can you explain to me WHY you believe this statement you just made?

*thank you all for keeping up with this with me, its very helpful to get the responses*

EXACTLY!!!

That's where faith comes in. You have to believe in God's existence. If you don't then how can you believe God is appearing to you if you don't believe He exists?


But my argument isn't faulty. God CAN appear before you if He chooses to do so. But if you don't believe God exists then what appears before you is just a being claiming to be God. If God were to appear before you in human form and tell you that He is God would you believe Him? What if He performed a miracle in your presence as proof? Would you believe that God existed then?

If the above is yes then does that mean that all it takes for someone who doesn't believe in God is for someone to come up to them, say they are God and perform some act that they cannot understand how it was done and they will believe that God exists? What if it was just some very talented magician who did a magic trick? Would you require a greater feat like the flooding of a city? What if this being told you New Orleans would be flooded? Would you now believe God exists or would you say that a certain combination of forces in nature combined to cause the flood or would you say that people have predicted for years that New Orleans could flood?

My point is this - if you don't believe God exists then how could He possibly prove it to you? You would find other explanations for things. The only way God can exist is if you have FAITH that He does. You have to accept His existence before you are able to contend that God is appearing to you. Tricky, isn't it?

Because God is the primary cause OF the world, and is therefore OUTSIDE it; the world can't cause itself to happen.

As I said in the post, if he were real and did appear there is the assumption that he would have convincing evidence of his identity. So no prior belief is needed there.

you just restated your belief, I want to know WHY you believe it. What reasoning brought you to that belief?

You're looking at it backwards, I think.

There is a primary cause of the world (unless you deny that); that primary cause is what I call God.

Just an aside - interesting how this thread has smoothed out since a certain event took place...

Curious.

This thread needs more David Lee Roth.

Or Travolta.

After reading this two paragraphs I just couldn't get the line from Star Trek V out of my head. "What does God... need with a starship?"

Man did that movie suck.


I don't think it's that tricky. Perhaps I am not as much of a skeptic as some, but I seriously believe that it could be proven to me that god exists. Heck, as I have hinted at earlier, part of me sort of wants to believe. Not because I feel any sort of empitness in my life or feel as if something's been missing since I stopped believing in god (it's actually been quite the contrary), but simply because I think it'd be kinda cool if such a being did exist. It opens the door to all sorts of possibilities.

As for what sort of proof would it take? Hard to say. I think it'd be a situation of observable evidence meets faith I suppose.

In my judgment, this phrasing (and well done, I'd add, st.cronin) is the sort of thinking that has the potential to find some general common ground between the state believers and non-believers in such a discussion.

There are quite a lot of non-believers out there who basically and irretreivably reject the Sistine Chapel verion of God -- flowing white beard, sitting on a cloud, created-us-in-His-image and so forth. However, once you get past the notion that this whole "God" thing has to be an actual personification -- and might instead have a form that is more ethereal, or even incorporeal, then you might get closer to finding that you're not all that far away from some agnostics out there.

I know a fair number of people who have "lost faith" but are still open to the idea that there are powers or forces beyond our understanding (either current or even potential), and that perhaps those things are themselves what some people call God.

So who/what do you love? Do you love your wife or do you love a pile of dust? The remains of your wife physically exist on the earth but do you love the soul and spirit of your wife, all the good times you had together, the happiness you shared - or do you love a pile of dust? Is that what love is? A reaction to an object? Would you feel happiness thinking back to your wedding or looking at a pile of dust? I can look at your pile of dust and think "wow its a pile of dust" whereas you would think about the love you shared with the woman who's physical presence has turned into that pile of dust. Don't you think I should think it a bit strange that you love a pile of dust? But you don't love the pile of dust - you love the woman and the things that made her who she was - those things continue to exist to you even though nobody can see or touch them.

Your wife's spirit and soul would not physically exist in this world nor would your memories yet you could love her just the same - or do you love a pile of dust? And what would happen if that pile of dust ceased to exist? Would you have to stop loving your wife because there are no physical remains of her on the earth?

EXACTLY! The anthropomorphic God is ludicrous and preposterous. To imagine that God thinks as we do is equally ludicrous - God is both before and beyond thought. God is what makes your thought thought.

How about some new imposing, black unis?

The guy with his hands up in the back looks like he's going to swoop in and squeeze Farve's ass with all his might.

I am not a scripture expert where I can bust out verses (and really I think that annoys people more than anything), but...

There is a verse that says something to the effect of... If you come to me (me being God) with a sincere heart and a desire to know and understand, it will be revealed to you.

I think I'm like many here in that I was brought up in a particular church and questioned and reasoned everything away. I even went as far as convincing my parents that if I took some classes on religion and investigated outside of their faith, I'd no longer have to attend their church. I went a long time without participating in any type of church or believing in God or Jesus Christ.

A few years ago I started reading scriptures again and I wanted to know for sure and came across the passage I mentioned above (again, I could look it up if you want). I asked and I know that I received an answer in my heart. I have never been more sure in my life that God does exist. I know I cant prove it to you anymore than you can prove that you love your family. Thats my personal relationship with God.

This could have been written by me. Nicely put, heybrad. Enjoyable discussion the past couple of pages. I'm still trying to catch up. :)

So you need to witness first-hand something with no possible explanation other than God (like the Lions winning the Super Bowl:) ) ? But would you believe even then? I guess that's hard for me to imagine looking at it that way because it defeats the purpose of faith. If a fat man in a red suit came down your chimney with toys and reindeer on the roof on Christmas Eve would you believe that Santa Claus exists? I would suspect you would think the guy is some nut breaking into your house and call the cops because you don't believe Santa exists.

You could witness a miracle before your eyes and attribute it to something else (science, medicine, nature...). Unless you believe that God exists you would have no reason to attribute that observable evidence to Him.

Take my cancer patient example from earlier - lets say its someone you know and friends and family are praying every day for what looks like to be a bleak situation. The patient is undergoing treatment and the cancer goes into remission and disappears - well? Who do you give thanks to? The doctor for treating the cancer? Do you thank God for His help? Did God help? Do you believe He helped? I would thank God and certainly the doctor for his efforts but I would attribute the cure to God. Someone with no faith will think that's ludicrious but those with faith understand. Unless you want God to exist and be part of your life He won't because even if He did you are likely not to recognize and attribute anything to Him.

But then what caused God? And if there can be a god who just IS and has no cause, then why couldn't there be a world that just IS and has no cause?

It's taken every ounce of willpower to keep it that way.

My point of view is being lifted straight out of mind from others, they are just much more patient than I am while expressing it.

Love may compare to faith, as they are both emotions. But love of a tangible person does not compare to faith in an intangible god.

Death does not erase memory of tangible events. Therefore love can exist, quite rationally in a godless schema, postmortem.

I appreciate your willingness to bring these ideas to the table. I asked this question a few pages back and HB did alright in addressing it, but I'm still not sold on his answer. :)

Why do we privilege tangible, physical evidence when the assumption that this is the only kind of evidence that counts cannot be tested through tangible, physical evidence? Can someone work through a logical chain of reasoning using tangible, physical evidence to prove that the only evidence of truth is what is tangible and physical? It seems people get hung up on the idea that if science can't explain the existence of something through physical evidence, then it cannot be true. But I'm still trying to figure out how science can justify itself using this criterion.

The world around is is clearly governed by causality (hence, the need and use for SCIENCE ;)); the primary cause, having no cause itself, must then be fundamentally different from the world we observe, and therefore UNKOWABLE by science.

I think I have addressed your point; also keep in mind I speak for no church and nobody but myself.

I think this starts to cross a line where non-believers would say, "this is just too convoluted a rule system."

At this point, you can't have it both ways. Either your God works in mysterious ways and prayer is irrelevant. Or your God answers prayer, and if he helps a non-believer instead of your son, you have a right to question that belief.

In many ways, it's far less painful to be an atheist. I don't question the motivation of hurricanes, I just want to get out of the damned way, so to speak.

I once read a book that really went in detail about this ("God and the New Physics"), but I cannot for the life of me recall what it said to refute this argument of yours...

I think this relates back to the Fiath or Science debate earlier on, its not so much that the ONLY way to prove something is through science, but that using science we can build a superior case for defining our universe than FAITH can ever attempt to offer. So when people look at both options and want to follow one or the other, Science at least has supporting evidence to correlate its position, Faith does not, it brings nothing but a requirement that you trust what you are told. Therein lies one of my biggest problems. I can't trust people's word, because people lie, people cheat, and people take advantage of others. So weighing the two sides I am forced to go with the mundane rather than the ordained.

A - theism. The prefix A- means "lack". Lack of theism doesn't mean rejection.

What you are descirbing are people who are called "Strong Atheists". They reject the idea that dieties exist. "God does not exist"

Then there are "Weak Atheists", which is what Jim and I are. "I do not beleive in God". But that doesn't mean we beleive God doesn't exist.

The modern definition for agnostism is someone who is not sure if God exists or not (essentially a weak atheist). I don't even know how it came to be defined as that, but that really wasn't the original definition of agnostism. It originally meant beleiving the true nature of God could not be known.

But, as I said, the term has (like many other words over time) gone through redefinition through modern use and now basically means a Weak Atheist. A lot of people who are weak atheist call themselves agnostic mainly because most people think of Strong Atheism when they think of the word "atheist".

And then there are people who are agnostic that are really close to beleiving in God, but just need one final push to fully beleive (for whatever reason, when I think agnostic, I think of those people, not people who are "fully" weak atheist)

And could you blame him if he did? I mean, it's Brett Farve!

That's not the kind of faith believers are talking about.

It's faith that your life has a purpose. Faith that you are cared for. Faith that you don't have to be afraid.

Really...see I BELIEVE that all those things are part of what you must find as an individual in this life, in society, to be happy. Persuit of happiness, life, love, liberty, security. These are all tangible things that one works for in life.

You mean I can just believe in GOD and *pift* I get all that?


*sorry, not trying to be snarky there, just typed up that way*

Sab, thanks for bringing up that distinction. Been meaning to get to it for a few pages now, just haven't had the time. Good explanation too. I also consider myself a weak athiest, which is why I think I could certainly believe in God if there was proof of his existence.

Speaking of Favre and an "ass"....

I knew there was hanky panky going on up at Ford Field.

Now that's a double team!

No, I quite firmly believe God doesn't exist. I'm most definitely a strong atheist.

I accept that there's a difference between belief and fact. You can't prove the God concept false any more than you can prove that invisible dragons don't live in my neighbor's garage.

But Jim, it doesn't work that way. Faith isn't a system where either you get what you want or you take your ball and go home. If it was everyone would believe in God and we would live in paradise because everyone would just pray for what they want and get it and be happy.

I believe that God is in charge - that I have free will to make decisions on this planet but that there are things out of my control. How do you see that? Do you have control over everything that happens? Does someone at least have control?

If I stopped being faithful because God didn't give me something I prayed for I would have been done long, long ago. If I pray for something and my prayer is not answered its obviously not meant to be that way. I believe prayer has the power to change SOME things but not all. Think of it like coaching a football game - you can call the play but whether or not it is successful is not up to you. If the play doesn't work do you quit coaching or do you accept the result - however bad it may be - and call a new play to try and move forward again? The game will continue whether you call in plays or not - its just a matter of whether or not you are hoping to have any say in what happens out there.

BTW I just want to add in that I too am impressed with everyone's ability to gain control of this thread and guide it to civil ground. There really are some facinating opinions here and I for one always like to hear an other points of view on things like this.

After pondering this thread a bit I sort of formulated something...I'm jsut going to throw it out there, raw and uncut, please don't take offense, its just the summnation I came to just now based on what we're all discussing.


Faith, belief that GOD exists, belief that GOD has a plan for everything, all really comes down to being a coping mechanism. Believers have faith to fall back on when life gets rough or when things just don't go their way, its also a nice anecdote when things are going well, someone to thank for making everything grande.

I can grasp it at this level, life is tough. Everyone has to go through life and deal with what it hands them. I suppose this attitude is far better than many options out there. It just seems too easy to me. Life's trials help us grow and if we fall back on coping mechanisms that take the responsibility for our life out of our hands, what do we learn? how can we grow? it seems to stagnate.

anyway...just another tangent my mind took on the whole subject.

Thats why I said my definition. I may not be able to spell, but I did learn prefixes in 5th grade. :p

I think there needs to be a special category for those that are truly antitheism. To be even in the same wording as those that simply don't have a theistic belief seem insufficient.


Personally, on God's recruit screen I would be:
Tigercat 1,512,123,543 5'9 177 not contacted

Don't let the red fool you, one phone call through the burning bush and I will probably accept his invitation.

Agreed. Definitely The Comeback Thread Of The Year.

My mistake.

I don't understand...are you saying you admit your definition of an atheist and the actual definition of an atheist are different?

I wonder how far someone could take this...I think I'll just start redefining words and trying to tell everyone what they are based on my definitions instead of the actual definitions.

I predict a new golden era of FOFC. Of love and discussion, where we share our varied views without hate or personal attacks.


Naaaaaaaa! It would be nice, though. Everybody that disagrees with me is too stupid to allow it to happen. :)

It's so much more than a coping mechanism though - sure you can fall back on it in bad times but its really a gateway to eternity. For those who don't believe in God I can see why you look at a bad situation and ask how God could let something like that happen - but for those with faith death is not the end game. Our life on earth isn't supposed to be perfect. Bad things are supposed to happen culminating in our death when THEN we get the chance to go to place where things are perfect in Heaven.

If you don't believe in a God or an afterlife I can understand why you would be angry that God, if He exists, lets bad things happen - its taking a chunk out of the time you are given in the world or ends it. But believing in God I know that this life is like the pre-season. It's my chance to work out the kinks and handle the difficulties that I am tested with - hopefully with God's help I pass and will get to Heaven in the end.

You don't need faith to be a good person nor does having faith alone make you a good person but you do need faith to believe that there is more to life than the time you are given on Earth. Why does an innocent, good person die? Maybe its really a reward for them although painful for us since I believe that eternity lasts alot longer than however long I'm going to be given here.

Well, I have been viewing this thread with some interest since yesterday and this is one item I think I can put my two cents in on.

I was raised a Catholic and when I went away to college I didn't have to go to church anymore so I didn't. I rapidly began to believe that God did not exist and that everything was driven by fate. This lasted until I graduated when I met my soon to be wife. She is the daughter of a Baptist pastor and believes 100% in the existence of God. She and I had many debates on the subject and it finally came down to me thinking "if this girl I love believes it so much, maybe there is something to it". That was the first step. I started going with her to church. At no time was it forced apon me in any way. I just went and listened and then talked to my wife about it. After about a year and a half it was like a light switch just clicked one day and I gave my life to God (I was actually in the shower, which is another story all together).

Now, looking back I look at my beliefs in college and the bad things that happened to me as lessons from God trying to point out that there was a better future out there if I would just open my eyes to him. Now, that is just me, so I don't want to say anyone who has not found him better shape up. This is just my example.

So, to answer your question as to why I believe it, I believe it because I opened my mind to it. I started to believe it at the time because the most important person in my life planted the seed of belief and God did the rest. I believe it now because in my heart I know its 100% true.

Anyway, I don't want to ramble. I agree with the prior posters when they say that all we can do is lead our lives in a Godly way and hopefully someone will look at me the way I looked at my wife and say "heh, maybe there is something to this".

You can't, I already took that job. You can be my assistant if you want though.

(The word usage I picked up from the religious studies departments at three major universities, LSU, Texas, and Kentucky. So I can hardly take credit for the job. If thats the way professional theologians are using the words in modern contexts, I'm not going to rock the boat. And as stated, in the absense of something stronger than atheism, it makes sense to me.)

I'll agree with you to the point that science can build a superior case for defining our universe by the criteria it has established to come up with the definition. I'll agree with you that science has some supporting evidence to establish its position (the tangible, experimental). On the flip side, faith has a superior case for defining our universe by the criteria it has established to come up with the definition. I'll also suggest that faith has some supporting evidence to support its position (the philosophical, propositional). So that's why it seems so important to me to establish what evidence/criteria counts. For me, the questions become, what counts as evidence, what evidence do I choose to accept and how do I come to accept that as evidence? It doesn't seem like I can tell the theist or the scientist that there isn't evidence to believe their claims as both offer legitimate, to my mind, but different notions of acceptable evidence.

BTW, I have also appreciated the conversation and the civility with which people are bringing their ideas forward.

that's all i'm willing to do at this point. for the record, when St. Peter is going over my Heaven credentials, he'll see that on top of all the sinning i've done - i've said my prayers every nite.

bottom line is this - i'm a good person. not a saint, but a good person. i don't need to believe in a hocus pocus grand wizard of Oz to be good - i do it of my own accord. now, if or when there's a judgement day, whether i believe in God or not the records will show i've spread more positivity than negativity (outside of FOFC). what's the difference between me being educated on God, not believing in Him but still living my life as a "good person" or someone in a tribe in the Congo, who's never heard of God, thus doesn't believe in Him, worships a different deity but lives his life as a "good person"? religion should be about getting you to act as that "good person". belief in people who return from the dead or Gardens of Eden or talking serpents or talking burning bushes - isn't that all secondary?

religion would be more credible if it was just about the most important part - getting its members to act as honorable, good people. it shouldn't be about "my religion is more credible than your religion" or "my God is better than your God" or "the reason why this bad thing happened to you is because you reject my God".

if you're telling me that me saying my prayers every nite, being a good person and honoring my wife but not "giving myself up to God" is the same as commiting murder according to God then i'm adamant about not concerning myself in that nonsense. basically i fall in the middle - i'm not a blind believer, i'm not an atheist (yet) who sins, i'm someone who lives as best i can and if there is a God He can't say i wasn't a good person and if there isn't a God then hey, at least people can't ever say Anthony Casso was a fucking prick while he was alive.

i'll take that.

Damn...well, a job's a job. Might I suggest our first words we try to redefine be the words "rat" and "dog" so that for now on, Chihuahuas will be by definition considered rats and not dogs.

Interesting post, Todd (and I don't mean the shower bit). It's funny, but it appears that our lives (on this topic at least) were parallel right up to a certain point: when we met our soon to be wives. I was raised Catholic. Did the whole thing all the way up confirmation. Still went to church when I was in highschool, but once I got to college I sort of thought of myself as more spiritual than religious. Still believed in god, but without all that Catholic stuff going on, but didn't really think too much of it.

Then I met Lady H_B, who had done some soul searching and sort of recently became an athiest. We talked about it at length and she pressed me on why I believed in god, Jesus, all that stuff. It wasn't anything forceful or agressive by any means, she was just curious about my beliefs and about her soon to be husband. Also, lived a 3,400 miles apart during the first year of our relationship so there were a TON of long-distance phone call (expensive to boot). Eventually, after talking with her and reading books (like the one I quoted earlier), articles, and what not, I decided that she was right. She (and the over whelming evidence and pure logic) convinced me that I didn't really believe in god. I think I'm a better person for it. (note: That last sentence is purely personal, it's not at all intended to imply anything other than how I feel about who I am. Just to be clear.)

I must say, HA, you've been the bomb in this thread from the crazy-ass begining parts to the end. Good stuff.

Ok


This is where I have to stop you, philosophical? propositional? thats not evidence, that purely conjecture. This is why I look at a religious belief system and say "WTF? Religion argues that science is wrong and that god created everything and in the face of physical, mathmatical, and more evidence which pokes holes throughout the creationist standpoint" Conjecture cannot prove anything, unlike scientific theories, you can't experiment with conjecture and prove anything. There is no case to support a religious faith based belief, beyond..."I believe" and thats just not good enough for me.

Can you show me what "evidence" the theists have shared with you? because in 37 years I haven't seen a single thing that would make a case.

this thread is working, and has been for the last 5 or so pages, because no one here is trying to get anyone to convert, and no one is trying to get the believers to abandon their God. debates on religion always go south because people think that someone can wake up in the morning, log on to FOFC and read a compelling post and change their life thereafter. no, not gonna happen. this discussion worked because all we're doing is giving the reason why we believe (or not). the preaching stopped. i might take part in more of these discussions if this was the case, but sadly this thread is the exception to the norm.

I figured that's where you would stop me. :-) Again, I appreciate the thoughts. Let's bracket the creation/science debate as it's not worth getting into here.

In some respects, this post demonstrates the evidence point I'm trying to make. It seems that you don't want to accept anything other than the tangible and physical as evidence (please don't read this sentence as accusatory, just trying to make a conclusion about what you believe from what's above). Anything based on other than the tangible and the physical is purely conjecture and one cannot experiment with conjecture. Am I understanding you correctly? If I'm reading this right, I could give you some propositional/philosophical evidence (as some others have tried to do in the thread), but it wouldn't count as evidence for you. By a scientific, tangible, physical standard of evidence, I would agree that there might not be a case for religious belief.

I'm not trying to bash science in any way, but it does seem that science is based on a proposition that can't be proven by science--the proposition that truth can only be discovered tangibly and physically through the senses. Scientists simply accept this as true, in philosophical terms, as properly basic. No experiments have been performed to test this assertion (where would you start in coming up with an experiment to test this assertion and how could it be done?). Lots of experiments have been done in working from the assertion, but I don't know of any that have been done to prove it. Heck, no scientist really thinks about it though. They just accept the idea as intuitively true without doing any experiments to prove its validity. It just makes sense to do things this way.

Why can't the religious work the same way in accepting the existence of God as intuitively true without doing any experiments to prove the validity of the assertion? Why does the theist need scientific evidence for their founding belief when scientists don't need it for theirs? No matter what system, science or faith, one adopts or adopts in combination, it seems like we would need to be consistent about how we evaluate both.

(still catching up on what happened while I was gone)

Yes.

Keep in mind, changing one's beliefs is not, strictly speaking, something you can do voluntarily. Normally it has to happen to you; the best you can do is prepare the way.

Dola

To expand: The belief system you (whoever you are) is categorically NOT a choice. If you don't believe me, try believing that the Earth is flat. It can't be done, even though there's no sensory evidence to prevent you from believing.

So then how can a god punish you for not believing in him/it? If whether or not you believe is NOT a choice, then you can't be held responsible for what you believe.

You are incorrect in your characterization of science. Science is based on the ability to predict future events if you know the starting parameters. Knowing that, you can work backwards to explain past events. And science has a pretty good track record in that respect, especially when compared to religion. Nearly every time religious dogma and science collide, it is science that comes out on top.

I think 'punish' is the wrong verb, since we are told that God is infinitely sadder than we are when we are separated from Him. That's the most basic definition of Hell, 'separation from God.' There is nothing more painful.

Still, your point is a fair one, but it goes back to one's sense of justice. You seem to be implying that you believe the way you believe because to believe otherwise would be to offend your sense of justice. I think that's a nonsensical position to take.

If you're referrring to the "sense of justice" discussion that came up earlier in this thread, you have me confused me with someone else.

I've always liked the "separation from God" explanation of hell. Plus you gotta figure that if someone doesn't believe in God, then being separated from Him isn't going to be a big deal to that person.

I was just saying that if you pair your "you don't choose what you believe" idea with the "if you don't believe in God and Jesus you're gonna spend all of eternity in a pit of fire" idea, it doesn't work out too well now does it :) (actually, isn't that a Calvanist thing? pre-determination and all that..)

The fight between free will and pre-determination is a very long one, with pretty much every great thinker weighing in at some point. I believe in free will, but I also believe free will is HARD. It's extremely difficult to choose to do anything.

Wouldn't we say that the ability to predict future events comes from the establishment of starting parameters that have themselves been derived from the assertion, "we can only know the truth through empirical, tangible and physical evidence"?

My apologies if I'm mischaracterizing science as I'm willing to hear other ideas about the baseline of scientific inquiry.
However, this is what I've understood to be the key idea behind the scientific project.

I just want to point out that the word 'dogma' comes from a greek word which means 'opinion,' although it has a somewhat stronger sense than our current use of the word.

I think that when th two dogmas of religion and science collide in items such as creation/evolution being taught in schools we hit the real problem with the two sides.

This is where science has the empirical evidence and background to at least supports its theory, where the creationist side simply says "GOd did it" and when it comes to a public school system and multiple children from multiple ways of life are being taught things, one cannot teach something with no valid support under it.

It would be like me teaching a class in high school called "NFL 101" and teaching that ONLY the Bengals are worthy of being supported, its a personal choiuce issue that we can't just blatantly push out onto the young.

sorry if I'm a bit out of the convo atm, cooking dinner ;)

My number one biggest problem with Christianity\Islam\et al is that, fine, it's been around for quite a long time in a particular region of the world (in comparison with recorded history, anyway), but what about the places it didn't reach for some 1500+ years until after Christ was put on the cross? Did God consider the people of South America & Japan (for just two examples) savages not worthy of hearing His word until the enlightened Europeans stumbled their way around the globe, bringing their religion and, usually, bloodshed with them? I just don't get that. Buddhism has a long history too, so why is Buddhism "wrong" and Christianity\Islam "right"?

When I've asked this question to other Christian people, people who have actually researched the other religions a little, they often scoff at how metaphysical and strange Buddhism is. Sure, I reply, but didn't you catch that chapter about that Noah dude building a boat to hold a pair of every animal and, presumably, insect? Not to mention the flood that covered the entire planet, which is interesting considering that even if the north and south poles melted away entirely we still wouldn't be looking at Kevin Costner's Water World; not by a long shot. To someone like me, I don't see the stories in the Christian bible as being any more or less strange than any other religion.

It's definitely no coincidence that religion was apart of every society, no matter how remote those societies may have been from one another. It appeared because people needed to find some kind of explanation for everything; that's just human nature. If you can't explain it logically, you attribute it to some kind of awesome higher power.

It would be nice to have some great power looking over us and guiding us, but when it comes down to it, Earth (and hence, humanity) are just a fantastically tiny and insignificant part of a much large picture. I don't normally look to Will Smith movies for philosophy, but at the end of Men in Black, when the camera pans out and reveals our entire universe to be a tiny little marble, well, maybe that's not so far from the truth? And would it really be such a big deal? I don't think so. It wouldn't make my life, my feelings or my actions any less meaningful or insignificant.

I don't really have a problem with naming the unmoved mover god, but then it seems this whole thing is a quibble about semantics. Anyone who believes in a causal universe is probably willing to accept that there is some sort of unmoved mover, but that concept, without more, is as remote from traditional notions of god as atheism is from Christianity. It is as easy to imagine it as an anomaly of physics as a supreme being. If you want to tag that event with the label God, then I don't have a problem with that and you can count me as a believer. But I really don't think that's the God that Gary and others are talking about. In a sense you define god out of existence.

I'll agree with you on this one. :) Because of the two different kinds of evidence accepted by faith and science, I have a more difficult time supporting the teaching of creationism in a science classroom. Of course if the creationists should be able to come up with scientific evidence, I would have to change my position.

It's actually also a debate about SENTIENCE. I don't subscribe to a clockwork universe; the unmoved mover has will.

Agreed with this and a couple of others who have posted the same. This thread went from going down the road of the Katrina thread to one of the more indepth threads out there where people just go point/counterpoint but there's no real malice outside of "I agree/disagree completely and here's why" which is how something like this should be.

SI

But if you subscribe to a causal universe, then you do believe in a clockwork universe. I think what you mean is that the pre-universe (ignoring any time-space implications of that term) was not clock-work? What you're describing (a causal universe created by some being who has not otherwise interfered) sounds remarkably like deism.

I find it interesting, however, that your intitial premise is that we can never know what the prime mover is, as it, being outside the realm of causality, is outside the reach of science. Yet you're willing to make assertions about the nature of the prime mover. Why? Is that not fundamentally irrational? How can the starting premise that we can't know anything about it end up at the conclusion that you do know something about it?

I do not believe that the prime mover has not interfered post-creation. I know people who have that belief, but I don't share it.

I think in a sense any assertions about the origins of the universe, whether scientific or theological, are inherently meta-rational.

My beliefs about the nature of the universe and God are most closely approximated in the Bhagavad-Gita; God pervades everything and is the cause of everything. You can turn that around and that what makes everything real and causes everything to happen is what I call God.

ohhmyGosh i give it 10 stars

tell me, me and MY emoties hold THIS title :cool: come onnnnn??
i got a new job and get to miss all the fun now:( soo carry on, no way in hell im entering a "religious" thread :D

I just wanted to point out that the latest tracks have Rita headed straight over Tyler, Texas.

I wonder what Pastor Bennett has to say right now? And if he'll apologize to the citizens of Tyler for judging lest he not be judged himself.

*chuckles quietly to self*

As of now, I am SO rooting for this to happen.

Isn't rooting for his come-uppence no different than what he said. He basically said NO got what it deserves, and you're doing the same thing. so may a hurricane strike you all :rolleyes:

Hey it's OK for me to judge him. He's an asshat.

But if that were to happen, we would have weather more powerful than we could ever imagine.

You know, the quick-to-prepare food item has a point.

SI

4 minutes or less!!!

Nicely played :)

SI

I've figured it out! Rita was sent to Houston because they took in the New Orleans evacuees! ;)

SI