# Ask a Christian anything



## StJudeThaddeus

I'm well versed in theology and thought it would be fun. Ask me about the bible, god... anything. References to flying spaghetti monsters are fine and won't offend me. oke:lol


----------



## ghost dog

Do you consider yourself as someone who "knows" there is a god, and that he is the christian god? Or just someone that believes.


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

I believe, based on personal experiences and plenty of scholarly research. Most theists believe, only a select few claim to "know" God exists. As to why I believe in the Christian God, it's because it's the only religion (I've studied many) that is complete and makes logical sense if properly understood. That and the fact that it's the one with most evidence supporting the various claims it makes.


----------



## 8888

Are you comfortable with Christian priests/pastors? Have you met any really good ones?


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

I honestly haven't met one I didn't like. I know a catholic priest with a PhD in physics, very intelligent guy with an interesting life story.


----------



## Paul

Do you seriously believe that god is a human-like individual consciousness with desires and demands and motivations similar to humans as detailed in the bible? Or do you believe god is more of an unknowable entity which humans can only parse in human-like ways due to our own limitations?

Do you think god has a particular fixation on humans and created the whole universe for us, or does he pay just as much attention to everything else?


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

I do believe God is similar to us in a way, or as the bible puts it, we are similar to him. What's not clearly specified is the way in which he is like us. It's important to distinguish the difference between the two. It's hard, if not impossible, to use this to determine the nature of God.

The bible focuses on telling the story man on earth. It doesn't specify whether the universe was created just for us. From my perspective, it would seem excessive due to the vastness of everything. However, the fact that the universe is vast remains. This strongly suggests that there is a purpose to the rest of creation, so yes; I do believe he pays attention to everything. That may be the case or not, what we can infer from the bible is that we are a key part of his creation.


----------



## Stephen says

Can you tell us the story of the first time you personally experienced God?


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

It's very personal and I'd rather not post it here tbh


----------



## Mat999

How do you respond to the fact that Christianity stole many ideas from previous religions. Then kept the bible a secret so nobody could read it, killing blasphemers for hundreds of years, now they make things up as they go along like how Mary died.

Obviously, you need to answer how dinosaurs existed, why the first testament had a rather nasty jealous god, plus there is no proof that anything of importance in the bible happened, yet there are other events documented properly with proof in that time. Plus how did Noah fit 5 billion species on 1 boat, why were Kangaroos never mentioned and why is the whole of the bible in a tiny little part of earth?

You can't answer all of that so the bible is false right? A man made religion (made up from previous religions) and you are believing in blind faith because you like the philosophy.

Also what is your view on the Pope killing millions of people by saying birth control is wrong, not to mention making the world over populated.


----------



## aladeen

do Christians worship a three gods or one god divided to three gods ???


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

No, Christians didn't copy from other religions. There are some similarities to older religions such as the resurrection, virgin birth etc. As someone else put it before, similarities don't mean that Christianity was copied from other religions any more than similarities in two different paintings mean that one was copied from another. Moreover, Christianity upholds the old testament which contains many books that were written hundreds of years before religions like Mithraism. Does that mean that Mithraism borrowed from the old testament?

Christians didn't make things up as they went along, some were removed and later added to the bible. Nothing was ever changed. You must remember that the bible is just a collection of accounts, not a continuous book. Many critics also claim that the bible was heavily altered due to being translated and rewritten many times. What they don't seem to realize is that all modern translations are still translated DIRECTLY from ancient manuscripts! There are thousands of manuscripts all telling the same stories. It is beyond ludicrous to think someone went around all over the world and changed thousands of ancient documents without leaving any traces (this is obviously impossible).

I don't know where you got the idea that the events aren't well documented. The crusification and resurrection of Jesus are agreed to be one of the best, if not the best, documented events from that time period. The whole of the bible is in one little tiny part of the earth because that's where the events in the bible happened. I think that should be pretty obvious LOL.

Don't have enough time to explain the ark, this is already becoming an essay. About God being cruel and evil, I would have to explain each particular example. Here is the summary instead:

The image of God that emerges from the Old Testament after a thorough study is just the opposite; God is portrayed as forgiving, patient, and slow to bring forth judgment. However, He is also revealed to be a holy, just, and righteous God who will bring justice about in His time. In short, the God of the Old Testament matches the God of the New Testament.

The birth control argument is laughable, don't ejaculate into a vagina if you don't want to have kids. Which is exactly what the pope and the bible teaches; one could argue that he is preventing overpopulation.


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

Aladeen, it's just one God.


----------



## Mat999

So what happened to Mary when she died? This link suggests there was no mention of it: 
https://bible.org/question/does-bible-say-anything-about-mary-being-ascended-heaven which means the point about her now flying up to heaven is invalid. It started as a traditional thing in one country and the Pope said, "that is a cool explanation, lets make it the truth". This is the whole point. It was all made up by people to conveniently explain things, hence the stealing of so many aspects of previous religions that are far too numerous to be coincidences.

And blaming humans for being human (i.e. wanting sex), is inhumane and causing mass suffering. The bible is out of date, expired, no longer relevant. None of it ever happened. There is no god in the biblical sense. Killing Africans because they are sinners (have sex) is plain evil and the same as mass murder. The Pope is a murderer!

And God is a nice guy? Have you seen the 10 commandments:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me. (So this is the number 1 rule? sounds like a jelous insecure god to me)

2. You shall not make idols. (So we shouldn't have others that we worship? Wait a minute, this is just backing up the first one, it is nearly the same thing. This guy is REALLY insecure)

3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. (So no saying "God damn it", wow what an important rule. Again an insecure and jelous guy. Reminds me of David Miscavige the ruler in Scientology)

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. (Well that rule never stuck did it, this is one of the most important rules to follow in life? Lol)

5. Honor your father and your mother. (Bingo, the first one which actually makes sense and is an excellent commandment)

6. You shall not murder. (Really? I assumed it would be totally cool to murder people i.e. I am being sarcastic, this is so obvious it doesnt really need to be there, but nevertheless it is a good rule)

7. You shall not commit adultery. (So this comes before rape and other atrocities? Lame! Still it is a good rule)

8. You shall not steal. (Good rule)

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (This one is hilarious in its wording. Just say "don't lie". Good rule)

10. You shall not covet. (I had to look this one up and I think it means don't be materialistic, greedy or jelous of other peoples stuff. I like it)

So the first 3 are basically saying don't mess with god. The rest are a mish mash of decent rules to follow, but so much has been left out. The first 4 are a joke and in place to keep people brainwashed and fearful. They are the exact rules David Miscavige would have, not a just and right god.

Looking forward to a reply. Especially about the Pope being an indirect murderer.


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

You're making incoherent arguments. You can have sex without having a baby without the use of birth control. No historian would agree that nothing in the bible ever happened. Have you even looked at the evidence? Who is killing Africans because they are having sex? 

The person who discovered steel is responsible for indirect murder because people use it to kill each other. You're responsible for indirect murder because you pay taxes which go towards war. We are not willing to submit to ISIS, women don't want to become sexual slaves and we don't want to convert to Islam. This causes ISIS to kill people. So we are responsible for all those deaths. I hope you understand what I'm trying to show you.

Nice try, you could have found those which are even better!

-> "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Exodus 20:5)
-> for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God-- (Exodus 34:14)
-> "For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. (Deuteronomy 4:24)
->'You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Deuteronomy 5:9)
-> for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the LORD your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off, the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 6:15)

What these five verses have in common is that they all share the same Hebrew adjective, qannâ' translated with the English word "jealous." The interesting thing about this word is that it is only used in reference to God. In no instance is the word qannâ' used to describe human jealousy. The reason that God is "jealous" is because He wants people to choose to love Him. Jesus said that the most important commandment was to love God. God does not want us to waste out time worshipping pretend gods that do not exist.

The differences between the words describing human vs. godly jealousy are profound. For example, the jealousy that keeps one out of heaven is defined as "an envious and contentious rivalry, jealousy". God does not envy an human being or anything that any human being possesses. God has no rivals. The apostle Paul indicates that there is a godly form of jealousy. The main reason why atheists think that God should not be jealous is that, as an English word, "jealousy" has virtually universal negative connotations. In the original languages in which the Bible is written, Hebrew and Greek, the words translated as "jealousy" in English do not always have negative connotations. In fact, the Greek word often translated "jealous" is zēlos, from which we get the English word "zealous," referring more to zeal and ardor rather than jealousy.

Jealousy is often thought of as being a negative trait. So, many people think that the Bible's description of God as jealous means that He must be a divine hypocrite. However, this page has shown that in the original languages in which the Bible is written, the words do not have those negative definitions. Since the word used to describe the jealousy of God is not even the same word used to describe human jealousy, it is clear that the apparent contradiction is just a result of an inability of the translated language (English) to accurately reflect the original language (Hebrew). There is no slight on the character of God in the original language.


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

Also, your conviction that Christianity "stole" from other religions still has no merit.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

What do dogs think about when they stare into space?


----------



## mt moyt

what do you think of people who dont believe in god


----------



## SFC01

Sometimes, when you sit back and think about your belief in God, do you ever think "how ****ing ridiculous" ? 

serious question btw


----------



## SFC01

also, who is more important to you - God or Family/Friends ?


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

Dog 1: "Why did the people not like the restaurant on the moon?"
Dog 2: "Because there is no atmosphere"

Both: WoofWoofWoofWoof HuaHuaHuaHua


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

Nah, I don't think it's ridiculous. I do sometimes wonder if atheists realize how ridiculous some of their beliefs are.

God is more important, but I do have to admit it's difficult to reach that state LOL


----------



## SFC01

isn't an atheist belief just the one of not choosing to believe ? is that ridiculous ?


----------



## SFC01

and  

would you sacrifice your child if God appeared before you and said "go on fella, do it" or similar words.


----------



## mt moyt

why do you think god doesn't heal all illnesses and diseases using his power? if he created the universe surely this is something he could do


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

Not the fact that they are atheist in particular, and not all of them. Some of them believe that the big bang had no cause. i.e. nothing exploded into something. The empty set cannot populate itself. You might throw all of science and math into the trash. 

I think if God actually appeared before anyone, atheists included (you included), they would do what he says. Obviously you would have to be sure it's God and not, for example, that tab of acid you dropped a few hours ago.


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

mt moyt,

I think you're forgetting why Christians believe we are on earth and not with God. Free will also causes a lot of evil, even some diseases such as AIDS. No one forced you to go bum a monkey, did they?


----------



## SFC01

ok serious one now, 

in religious studies classes in school, did you pay attention or did you **** around terrorising the teacher like the rest of us?


----------



## SFC01

StJudeThaddeus said:


> I think if God actually appeared before anyone, atheists included (you included), they would do what he says.


I would chin him and then stamp on his nuts, like last time.


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

****ed around, we were always stoned in RE class. The teacher knew and always made comments about it, she was chill so it was alright though lol


----------



## SFC01

well maybe there is some hope for you yet


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

I could say the same thing about you ;-)


----------



## Mat999

StJudeThaddeus said:


> You can have sex without having a baby without the use of birth control. No historian would agree that nothing in the bible ever happened. Have you even looked at the evidence? Who is killing Africans because they are having sex?
> 
> The person who discovered steel is responsible for indirect murder because people use it to kill each other. You're responsible for indirect murder because you pay taxes which go towards war. We are not willing to submit to ISIS, women don't want to become sexual slaves and we don't want to convert to Islam. This causes ISIS to kill people. So we are responsible for all those deaths. I hope you understand what I'm trying to show you.


Does that make it right to ban condoms in Africa?

You think it is good for kids to be born with AIDS?

Your Pope is wrong to ban condoms which leads to mass deaths and mass suffering. This is fact, not opinion. It is wrong to the point of being evil. Especially when you also add in the other atrocities *created by *christians in Africa like the murder and torture of gays.

Christianity has a few good rules, but it also has evil in it.


----------



## Mat999

StJudeThaddeus said:


> Free will also causes a lot of evil, even some diseases such as AIDS. No one forced you to go bum a monkey, did they?


So if you get AIDS it is your own fault? And the children born with AIDS? They have also sinned and deserve years of suffering and an early death in Africa?

There is a very simple solution to stop kids being born with AIDS. Which is blocked by christians in some places.


----------



## Mat999

StJudeThaddeus said:


> Also, your conviction that Christianity "stole" from other religions still has no merit.


It was taken from previous religions. I am not a scholar or historian so I cannot go any further than giving you a link to an intelligent debate about it, which mentions and links to various sources: https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/6512/

You will not read that and even if you did your blind faith would not allow you to see the truth. So this is the end of this argument. You can say you win if you want because it is just a waste of my time reading about myths. I have no interest in myths.

There is no biblical god. That is a fact for rational people. Christianity is a cult which was well put together using proven stories, it caught on. Now it is almost dead in Europe and as the US becomes more civilized it will soon die there too. Churches are only built in poor countries where the needy can be exploited. In the UK they are now convereted into apartments.


----------



## Neal

Do all Christians possess the holy hand grenade?


----------



## Mat999

No. Only the knights who say ni

And brother Maynard


----------



## VanDamMan

What month was Jesus born?


----------



## ljubo

Mat999 said:


> Also what is your view on the Pope killing millions of people by saying birth control is wrong, not to mention making the world over populated.


with this logic atheists kills millions of people too (abortion).

also what source do you have that the pope is doing this?


----------



## ljubo

Mat999 said:


> christians in Africa like the murder and torture of gays.
> 
> .


why do you atheists always think that it is only christians in africa that torture and and kill gays. there is also muslims in africa that torture and kill gays. and what do you mean with "like", only 1 christian nation in africa is killing gays. and i have talked personally to several african christians on facebook, none of them wanted to kill and torture gays.

and check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory


----------



## WillYouStopDave

Do you think God ever farts? How could we possibly be made exactly in his image if he doesn't eat or have intestines? And if he doesn't eat, does he even have teeth? Why would you need teeth if you don't eat?

If he "just knows" everything there is to know, why does he need eyes or ears or any of that jazz? Why would he need to actually see light reflecting off of something in order to confirm what he already knows? If we are designed off of God, he has a lot of completely unnecessary physical characteristics. 

Does God shave? I'm assuming he has facial hair, since we do and he was supposed to be the original model. We shave because we're weird like that (Remember. God didn't even want us to wear clothes so we do weird stuff that God apparently doesn't. We don't walk around with our wieners flopping around for everyone to see). Anyway, if cleanliness is next to godliness, can we assume that God bathes and brushes his unnecessary teeth?

Why does God need legs and feet and arms and stuff? Didn't he just poof us into existence with his words? It's not like he spent a week in his back yard building the universe with hammers and saws and stuff, right? He doesn't need hands or arms. Unless it's just so he doesn't look weird just being a head and a torso floating around wherever it is that he dwells. 

Why does the Bible always talk that nonsense about the moon giving light? The moon is just a big old reflector and the Bible should know that, right? It's not a light source at all. And God should have certainly known that, considering he made the darn thing and supposedly designed it to do what it does.


----------



## Erroll

My problem with Christianity lies in the redemption story, when considered in light of modern views on free will. 

Researcher Benjamin Libet determined that there is activity in the brain 500 milliseconds before a person consciously realizes it. For instance we pull our hand off of a hot stove before we are aware of the burn. So what is the subconscious considering and deciding before we are even aware of it? So just how much of what goes into our 'free will' decisions can we be aware of? 

So, if we act before we are consciously aware of it, where is there time for a 'free will' decision? And how can there be sin without free will? And what did Christ die for, if there was no sin?

A second thing; because your handle sounds slightly Roman Catholic 

What do you think of the "Letters of Mother Teresa of Calcutta? I mean with all her comments that she did not believe in god? I know that the church doctrine says that she was suffering the "Long Dark Night of the Soul", hearkening back to the experience of St John of the Cross. The idea being that the disbelieving believer would have no consolation from god and still continue on a righteous path, with no hope of consolation or eternal life. So does god test people like that for real? Mother Teresa and St John of the Cross are the story of Job retold. God takes away your faith to test if you are still good without it. That sounds like a stretch. What do you think? I think it seems abysmally cruel to take away the faith that one has devoted his life to.


----------



## Mat999

ljubo said:


> why do you atheists always think that it is only christians in africa that torture and and kill gays. there is also muslims in africa that torture and kill gays. and i have talked personally to several african christians on facebook, none of them wanted to kill and torture gays.
> 
> and check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory


What a ridiculous comment:
A. I am not an athiest, so you are wrong there.
B. Where did I say only Christians torture and kill gays? I never said that, so you are wrong again.
C. I never said whatever you are trying to say with this incoherent sentence; "and what do you mean with "like", only 1 christian nation in africa is killing gays." So you are wrong there too.
D. You spoke to several Christians and they don't kill gays. Woop dee doo. You do realise that several means absolutley nothing, so that is a useless point.

Every single point you tried to make there was wrong. Fail. Try harder next time. >


----------



## ljubo

Mat999 said:


> What a ridiculous comment:
> A. I am not an athiest, so you are wrong there.
> B. Where did I say only Christians torture and kill gays? I never said that, so you are wrong again.
> C. I never said whatever you are trying to say with this incoherent sentence; "and what do you mean with "like", only 1 christian nation in africa is killing gays." So you are wrong there too.
> D. You spoke to several Christians and they don't kill gays. Woop dee doo. You do realise that several means absolutley nothing, so that is a useless point.
> 
> Every single point you tried to make there was wrong. Fail. Try harder next time. >


show me fact. show me that the majority of african christians support the killing and torture of gays. since only 1 christian nations in africa does that i find it hard to belive that 90 % of them support the killing and torture of gays. with this type of sterotypes you are doing we can easily jump for exemple muslims and say they like to kill gays too.

anways its intresting you only jump on the black people. i do smell some sort of racism from you.


----------



## Mat999

ljubo said:


> with this logic atheists kills millions of people too (abortion).
> 
> also what source do you have that the pope is doing this?


This is too easy...

Before 3 months the feutus is not a human being. That is a fact I believe in and a lie you are in denial about. No point arguing it as we will not change each others minds. In your mind a 12 year old raped by her enormous fat 60 year old father should keep the feutus, it is a sick breach of human rights. It is a form of evil enslavement of females and dispicable!

A baby born at 3 mounths would die. Therefore it is not a human with rights as it is incapable of living. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml#h1 if you want to learn more about ethics and why you telling a female what she can do with an egg in her body is sick enslavement.

Of course an abortion should be done only in rare cases and as soon as possible. Ideally before 3 weeks when the heart starts beating. Before that it is not a human, it is a collection of cells closer to a petri dish of sperm and a female menstrual egg than a human.

I just Googled your next ridiculous point and Wikipedia pops up first:
"Globally, well over thirty million people have died from HIV/AIDS. The Church's condom ban was largely ignored in industrialised countries, in which public awareness campaigns encouraged condom use.[citation needed] The church's stance against condoms has been blamed[according to whom?] for the prevalence of AIDS in Africa"
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS

There are many sources directly mentioning the Pope too, such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7951839.stm which quotes the Pope:
"don't use condoms - even to prevent the spread of Aids" Pope Benedict XVI

Something good has come from your nasty points at last:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...atholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html
"The Pope has signalled a historic shift in the position of the Roman Catholic Church by saying condoms can be morally justified." As a sheep, sorry I meant follower, I expect you will of changed your stance at the same time.
"After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the Pontiff has ended the Church's absolute ban on the use of condoms."

So I will now stop my attack on the pope regarding condoms being banned. But there are still hateful christians stopping people having condoms: 
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...alist-catholics-dismisses-condom-ban-as-unimp
"Pope Francis attacks 'fundamentalist' Catholics, dismisses condom ban as unimportant" 
Sounds like your new pope has more common sense but there are still evil fundamentalist christians ruining peoples lives in Africa. From the same page:
" "They do evil," said the pope. "I say this because it is my church."
"We have to combat it," he said. "Religious fundamentalism is not religious, because it lacks God."

These are radical new thoughts from this Pope as Wikipedia backs up:
"The Roman Catholic Church has been opposed to contraception since at least the second century."
"The Roman Catholic position on contraception was formally explained and expressed by Pope Paul VI's Humanae vitae in 1968. Artificial contraception is considered intrinsically evil".
I am not saying all catholics are evil, but there is a large percentage who have evil beliefs: "According to a nationwide poll of 2,242 U.S. adults surveyed online in September 2005 by Harris Interactive (they stated that the magnitude of errors cannot be estimated due to sampling errors, non-response,etc.), 90% of Catholics supported the use of birth control/contraceptives."

There are lots of factions but whether it is 10% or less; the fact remains than many christians are evil and depriving women and children of human rights such as birth control.


----------



## Mat999

ljubo said:


> show me fact. show me that the majority of african christians support the killing and torture of gays. since only 1 christian nations in africa does that i find it hard to belive that 90 % of them support the killing and torture of gays. with this type of sterotypes you are doing we can easily jump for exemple muslims and say they like to kill gays too.
> 
> anways its intresting you only jump on the black people. i do smell some sort of racism from you.


Again utter nonsense. You demand me to do something I never even said. Where have I said "the majority of african christians support the killing and torture of gays"? 
WHERE?

You are making idiotic assumptions because you are now on the back foot because you know you are wrong.

Now you are assuming I am a racist? Who against?
WHO?


----------



## ljubo

Mat999 said:


> There are lots of factions but whether it is 10% or less; the fact remains than many christians are evil and depriving women and children of human rights such as birth control.


yeah, and the same goes for atheists, buddhists, muslims, hindus, jews etc. and one thing you forget, this evil christians opress christians aswell. lets unite against all evil people no matter religion.


----------



## Mat999

WillYouStopDave said:


> Do you think God ever farts?


That is where wind comes from. Hurricanes are massive rippers:grin2:


----------



## ljubo

Mat999 said:


> Again utter nonsense. You demand me to do something I never even said. Where have I said "the majority of african christians support the killing and torture of gays"?
> WHERE?
> 
> You are making idiotic assumptions because you are now on the back foot because you know you are wrong.
> 
> Now you are assuming I am a racist? Who against?
> WHO?


you dont like people with dark skin.


----------



## Mat999

Erroll said:


> What do you think of the "Letters of Mother Teresa of Calcutta? I mean with all her comments that she did not believe in god?


Good point as was everything else you and Will said.

Listening to Christopher Hitchens rip into her and christianity is a wonderful thing.


----------



## Mat999

ljubo said:


> yeah, and the same goes for atheists, buddhists, muslims, hindus, jews etc. and one thing you forget, this evil christians opress christians aswell. lets unite against all evil people no matter religion.


Why are you bringing other religions into this? It's like you are making excuses for the evil in Christianity. This is a thread started by a christian about christianity. You know your points are stupid so now you are trying to divert my attention. Your stupid game will not work on me. The subject is christianity, stick to it.


----------



## Mat999

ljubo said:


> you dont like people with dark skin.


You only answered one of my questions whereas I have had the courtesy to reply to all of yours.

Your answer was the most idiotic thing you have said yet. I have gone on an on about Africans being treated badly in this thread, so *there are zero grounds for saying I am predjuice against people with dark skin*. I am standing up for them.

I asked you to point out where I said something about your last *slander against me*. And now I want you to show me where I have said anything that would indicate I am racist against people with dark skin?
WHERE?

And you havent answered my previous question...
WHERE?

You are resorting to slander. 
"the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation."


----------



## ljubo

Mat999 said:


> Why are you bringing other religions into this? It's like you are making excuses for the evil in Christianity. This is a thread started by a christian about christianity. You know your points are stupid so now you are trying to divert my attention. Your stupid game will not work on me. The subject is christianity, stick to it.


thats what people always do. its about showing that not just this group is bad becuse critics of certain groups always think only 1 group is bad.


----------



## Tetragammon

Are you really so insecure in your beliefs that you have to come to this forum specifically to taunt us, or flaunt your so-called "knowledge"? Grow up.

This is analogous to an atheist going to the Spiritual Support forum and talking about atheism. Which I think is rude and would never do. Seriously, please post crap like this in the "Agnosticism, Atheism and Religion" forum under Discussions. That's where it belongs, because this discussion is in no way conducive to atheist and/or agnostic support. 

Oh, and I personally think you're a terrible person for putting your imaginary friend over your family. Just sayin'.


----------



## Mat999

I am going to bow out of this thread. Not interested in these negative vibes. Being called a racist is a pathetic attack on me.


----------



## Mat999

ljubo said:


> thats what people always do. its about showing that not just this group is bad becuse critics of certain groups always think only 1 group is bad.


OK, my final post in this thread. Yet another assumption by you. Now it is that I only think christians are bad. Where did I say that? As you are incapable of backing up your accusations I shall answer for you: Nowhere.


----------



## ljubo

Mat999 said:


> I am going to bow out of this thread. Not interested in these negative vibes. Being called a racist is a pathetic attack on me.


i am sorry .


----------



## Mc Borg

Erroll said:


> Researcher Benjamin Libet determined that there is activity in the brain 500 milliseconds before a person consciously realizes it. For instance we pull our hand off of a hot stove before we are aware of the burn. So what is the subconscious considering and deciding before we are even aware of it? So just how much of what goes into our 'free will' decisions can we be aware of?
> 
> So, if we act before we are consciously aware of it, where is there time for a 'free will' decision?


I'm no longer religious, but I lean toward some sort of free will. I however hold that position tentatively and I'm open to both possibilities (I'm a fallibilist) and don't claim knowledge. With that said, the Libet experiments have not shown that free will doesn't exist. Here is a talk by a (non-religious to my knowledge - so no religious motive, isn't a dualist and is agnostic with respect to the truth of free will/determinism - so more neutrality/ objectiveness) philosopher showing the flaws with Libet's experiments and the position that science has disproven free will.






Either way, I'm not sure how having a hand on a hot stove is relevant to decision making/free will. My guess would be that it's a process. It takes time for nerve signals to be sent to the brain (is it supposed to be instantaneous?) and it's not clear what kind of brain activity means what and what is going on to extrapolate that "that's the moment that x (mostly the "deciding" with respect to these experiments) occurred. That seems to be an assumption just stated with no proof. You can't infer from activity in the brain at time t, to therefore a decision was being made at time t. We simply don't know _what's_ going on in the brain (maybe someday this can be (dis)proven), but until then.

Mele also is an expert on the subject; most of his philosophical work is in the philosophy of action with emphasis on free will, so I think it's safe to say that he knows his stuff. He was also the director of the Big Questions in Free Will Project and is currently working on the Philosophy and Science of Self-Control Project, which I'm curious what the results will be.

He also wrote a book of the same title as the talk (which I own, but haven't read yet), which Dan Dennett (hardly a friend of religious views of free will) reviewed and said it was successful in showing that science hasn't disproven free will. So yeah, I think it's been pretty conclusively shown that Libet, et al haven't shown what they claim to show.

I also agree with @Tetragammon. This thread should have been posted somewhere else.


----------



## Erroll

Mc Borg said:


> I'm no longer religious, but I lean toward some sort of free will. I however hold that position tentatively and I'm open to both possibilities (I'm a fallibilist) and don't claim knowledge. With that said, the Libet experiments have not shown that free will doesn't exist. Here is a talk by a (non-religious to my knowledge - so no religious motive, isn't a dualist and is agnostic with respect to the truth of free will/determinism - so more neutrality/ objectiveness) philosopher showing the flaws with Libet's experiments and the position that science has disproven free will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either way, I'm not sure how having a hand on a hot stove is relevant to decision making/free will. My guess would be that it's a process. It takes time for nerve signals to be sent to the brain (is it supposed to be instantaneous?) and it's not clear what kind of brain activity is going on to extrapolate that "that's the moment that x (mostly the "deciding" with respect to these experiments) occurred. That seems to be an assumption just stated with no proof. You can't infer from activity in the brain at time t, to therefore a decision was being made at time t. We simply don't know _what's_ going on in the brain (maybe someday this can be (dis)proven), but until then.
> 
> Mele also is an expert on the subject; most of his philosophical work is in the philosophy of action with emphasis on free will, so I think it's safe to say that he knows his stuff. He was also the director of the Big Questions in Free Will Project and is currently working on the Philosophy and Science of Self-Control Project, which I'm curious what the results will be.
> 
> He also wrote a book of the same title as the talk (which I own, but haven't read yet), which Dan Dennett (hardly a friend of religious views of free will) reviewed and said it was successful in showing that science hasn't disproven free will. So yeah, I think it's been pretty conclusively shown that Libet, et al haven't shown what they claim to show.
> 
> I also agree with @Tetragammon. This thread should have been posted somewhere else.


OK. Forget Libet.

Where does free will come from? Inputs to a hunman be3ing are 1) genetic heritage and 2) life experiences.
So with those 2 inputs, how does free will come about? Now you could posit a soul and say that the soul makes free will, you can do that. But, say, I do not accept soul, and I insist that the only empirical imputs to a human are genetics and experience. The genes build an erxperience machine. Experiences build the mind. We act in accordance with past experience, because we don't know of any other way of acting other than we have learned by experience.

So my choices are set up by experience, and the choice I take is based on experience. I choose stuff that has led to successful outcomes in the past. I tend not to choose stuff that didn't work out so well in the past.

So what can you say about free will other than assuring me that it really, really does exist, like the religious assure me that the soul really does exist? If it does, at what point do nature's processes stop, and what takes over from natures line of donminoes and provides free will to me? Why on earth should I believe that I have free will?

Erroll


----------



## Kovu

StJudeThaddeus said:


> I believe, based on personal experiences and plenty of scholarly research. Most theists believe, only a select few claim to "know" God exists. As to why I believe in the Christian God, it's because it's the only religion (I've studied many) that is complete and makes logical sense if properly understood. That and the fact that it's the one with most evidence supporting the various claims it makes.


I have studied religion and the Bible as well too. But I came to a different conclusion than you that Christianity isn't right. Jesus never says he is God and even gives an account of how he was created.

22 "The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,[a][b]
before his deeds of old;23 I was formed long ages ago,at the very beginning, when the world came to be.24 When there were no watery depths, I was given birth when there were no springs overflowing with water;25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,26 before he made the world or its fields or any of the dust of the earth.27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. 30 Then I was constantly[c] at his side. I was filled with delight day after day rejoicing always in his presence,

How do we know that this Wisdom here is Jesus?

trinitarian scholar Edmund Fortman writes: 

"Paul applied it [Prov. 8:22-30] to the Son of God. The Apologists [Christian writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries] used it to prove to Gentile and Jew the pre-existence of the Word *and his role in creation*." - (See CREEDS 5-16: quotes from the writings of Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin Martyr which equate the Son with "Wisdom" speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 and admit that he had been *created* by God as the beginning of God's works - Prov. 8:22.) 

Trinitarian scholar Dr. W. H. C. Frend agrees: 

"By the time he wrote to the Corinthians in c. 53, Paul had developed in his mind the equation of Christ with the divine Wisdom incarnate (`Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God' [1 Cor. 1:24])." - p. 102, _The_ _Rise_ _of_ _Christianity_, Fortress Press, 1985.


----------



## Kovu

And his trinitarian opponent, Athanasius, although sometimes also attempting to appeal to scripture, never refuted this usage of Proverbs 8:22 - 

"Athanasius....did not refute Arius by rejecting the *relevance* of Prov. 8:22." (Even though he attempted to show that Jesus had not been created by quoting *Ps*. *110:3*.) - p. 165 (173), _Eerdman's_ _Handbook_. 

In other words, when Arius quoted Proverbs 8:22 and applied it to Jesus, trinitarian Athanasius didn't dispute that application! Even Athanasius recognized that Wisdom in that scripture was intended to describe the Messiah! We even find Athanasius quoting a letter written by Dionysus, Bishop of Rome (259-268 A.D.) wherein he writes: 

"if the Christ is Word and *Wisdom* and Power, as you know the Divine Scriptures say he is ..." - p. 32, _Documents_ _of_ _the_ _Christian_ _Church_, Bettenson, Oxford University Press. 

Athanasius even admitted that Wisdom in Prov. 8:23, 30 was the Son: _Discourse 1 Against the Arians_.


----------



## Mc Borg

@error

Did you even read my post? I say I lean toward it, but I don't claim knowledge and am open to being wrong. Where was I "assuring you that it really, really does exist?" I was simply stating that Libet et al haven't shown what they claim to show. So your belief that there is no free will is unjustified (at least scientifically). So why on earth should I believe that we _don't_ have free will?

I personally believe in free will because of my experience. It _seems_ like I have (limited) free will. Analogously, you could ask why ought we believe in the existence of the external world or other minds? You can't prove beyond all reasonable doubt that an external world/other minds exist, but it _seems_ like there is/are. It's certainly not _irrational_ to believe those things. When you take skepticism to it's extremes, you're left with basically nothing. My experience is that which is most intimately known to me, so until science conclusively shows that we don't have any sort of free will, I'll continue to believe. If I'm wrong, so what? I have a false belief that according to studies is actually beneficial and belief in it's opposite may actually lead to negative behavior. After all, if I'm wrong, I have no choice but to be wrong, so it really doesn't matter anyway.

But here's an interesting take on free will from an atheist/naturalist that I can get behind:


----------



## discoveryother

is god/soul/heaven made from matter/material stuff/energy or does it exist on another "plane" of existence?


----------



## templar19

What do you think is the biggest problem with an atheistic world view? Do you think it's internally inconsistent, or just bleak?


----------



## Red October

I love how OP started this as an 'ask anything' thread, saying he wouldn't be offended by any jibes about spaghetti monsters, etc. with a very 'patient holy man' persona...

Then half way through the first page people start asking basic questions about the evolution and cross influence of religion and he starts losing his cool, gradually turning all fire-and-brimstone over the next page or so before disappearing entirely :lol

Guess he wasn't so different to us earthly mortals after all


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

Erroll said:


> My problem with Christianity lies in the redemption story, when considered in light of modern views on free will.
> 
> Researcher Benjamin Libet determined that there is activity in the brain 500 milliseconds before a person consciously realizes it. For instance we pull our hand off of a hot stove before we are aware of the burn. So what is the subconscious considering and deciding before we are even aware of it? So just how much of what goes into our 'free will' decisions can we be aware of?
> 
> So, if we act before we are consciously aware of it, where is there time for a 'free will' decision? And how can there be sin without free will? And what did Christ die for, if there was no sin?
> 
> A second thing; because your handle sounds slightly Roman Catholic
> 
> What do you think of the "Letters of Mother Teresa of Calcutta? I mean with all her comments that she did not believe in god? I know that the church doctrine says that she was suffering the "Long Dark Night of the Soul", hearkening back to the experience of St John of the Cross. The idea being that the disbelieving believer would have no consolation from god and still continue on a righteous path, with no hope of consolation or eternal life. So does god test people like that for real? Mother Teresa and St John of the Cross are the story of Job retold. God takes away your faith to test if you are still good without it. That sounds like a stretch. What do you think? I think it seems abysmally cruel to take away the faith that one has devoted his life to.


You'd be glad to find out that Libet came to the conclusion that free will exists. Have you read the report? If not you should at least know the conclusion :smile2:

Mother Theresa's faith crisis has been widely discussed by Christians everywhere, I think you should refer to Google for that one.


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

Red October said:


> I love how OP started this as an 'ask anything' thread, saying he wouldn't be offended by any jibes about spaghetti monsters, etc. with a very 'patient holy man' persona...
> 
> Then half way through the first page people start asking basic questions about the evolution and cross influence of religion and he starts losing his cool, gradually turning all fire-and-brimstone over the next page or so before disappearing entirely :lol
> 
> Guess he wasn't so different to us earthly mortals after all


I'm still here, turns out my new drug combination works well and I have a social life again. Hence less time to surf the web.

So replying to the question is losing my cool? Interesting conclusion.


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

andy1984thesecond said:


> is god/soul/heaven made from matter/material stuff/energy or does it exist on another "plane" of existence?


Obviously in another "plane" of existence. The creator has to exist outside of his creation, I think that's pretty basic knowledge, theist or otherwise.


----------



## SFC01

StJudeThaddeus said:


> Obviously in another "plane" of existence. The creator has to exist outside of his creation, I think that's pretty basic knowledge, theist or otherwise.


Any ideas as to what this "plane" looks like or its location ? What else do you think is in the plane ?

Also, how old do you think god is ? and what do you think he was he doing all those billions of years or more (depending on you answer to how old he is) before the first humans *evolved*?

Maybe he has had loads of flocks blindly following him throughout his life?


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

templar19 said:


> What do you think is the biggest problem with an atheistic world view? Do you think it's internally inconsistent, or just bleak?


One would be morality, atheists who think it's objectively bad to commit e.g. genocide have no basis for this claim. In fact, there is no right or wrong from that worldview.

Many atheists behave morally and expect others to behave morally as well. But absolute morality simply does not comport with atheism. Why should there be an absolute, objective standard of behavior that all people should obey if the universe and the people within it are simply accidents of nature? Of course, people can assert that there is a moral code. But who is to say what that moral code should be? Some people think it is okay to be racist; others think it is okay to kill babies, and others think we should kill people of other religions or ethnicities, etc. Who is to say which position should be followed? Any standard of our own creation would necessarily be subjective and arbitrary.

Consider the atheist who is outraged at seeing a violent murder on the ten o'clock news. He is very upset and hopes that the murderer will be punished for his wicked actions. But in his view of the world, why should he be angry? In an atheistic, evolutionary universe where people are just animals, murder is no different than a lion killing an antelope. But we don't punish the lion! If people are just chemical accidents, then why punish one for killing another? We wouldn't get upset at baking soda for reacting with vinegar; that's just what chemicals do. The concepts that human beings are valuable, are not simply animals, are not simply chemicals, have genuine freedom to make choices, are responsible for their actions, and are bound by a universal objective moral code all stem from a Christian worldview. Such things simply do not make sense in an atheistic view of life.

Now, some atheists might respond, "That's right! Morality is subjective. We each have the right to create our own moral code. And therefore, you cannot impose your personal morality on other people!" But of course, this statement is self-refuting, because when they say, "you cannot impose your personal morality on other people" they are imposing their personal moral code on other people.

Another inconsistency occurs when atheists attempt to be rational. Rationality involves the use of laws of logic. Laws of logic prescribe the correct chain of reasoning between truth claims. For example, consider the argument: "If it is snowing outside, then it must be cold out. It is snowing. Therefore, it is cold out." This argument is correct because it uses a law of logic called modus ponens. Laws of logic, like modus ponens, are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities. They are immaterial because you can't touch them or stub your toe on one. They are universal and invariant because they apply in all places and at all times (modus ponens works just as well in Africa as it does in the United States, and just as well on Friday as it does on Monday). And they are abstract because they deal with concepts.

Laws of logic stem from God's sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities, because God is an immaterial (Spirit), omnipresent, unchanging God who has all knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Thus, all true statements will be governed by God's thinking-they will be logical. The law of non-contradiction, for example, stems from the fact that God does not deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). The Christian can account for laws of logic; they are the correct standard for reasoning because God is sovereign over all truth. We can know some of God's thoughts because God has revealed Himself to us through the words of Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ.

However, the atheist cannot account for laws of logic. He cannot make sense of them within his own worldview. How could there be immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract laws in a chance universe formed by a big bang? Why should there be an absolute standard of reasoning if everything is simply "molecules in motion"? Most atheists have a materialistic outlook-meaning they believe that everything that exists is material, or explained by material processes. But laws of logic are not material! You cannot pull a law of logic out of the refrigerator! If atheistic materialism is true, then there could be no laws of logic, since they are immaterial. Thus, logical reasoning would be impossible!

No one is denying that atheists are able to reason and use laws of logic. The point is that if atheism were true, the atheist would not be able to reason or use laws of logic because such things would not be meaningful. The fact that the atheist is able to reason demonstrates that he is wrong.

How could there be laws at all without a lawgiver? The atheist cannot account for

(1) the existence of laws of logic,

(2) why they are immaterial,

(3) why they are universal,

(4) why they do not change with time, and

(5) how human beings can possibly know about them or their properties.

But of course, all these things make perfect sense on the Christian system. Laws of logic owe their existence to the biblical God. Yet they are required to reason rationally, to prove things. So the biblical God must exist in order for reasoning to be possible. Therefore, the best proof of God's existence is that without Him we couldn't prove anything at all! The existence of the biblical God is the prerequisite for knowledge and rationality. This is called the "transcendental argument for God" or TAG for short. It is a devastating and conclusive argument, one that only a few people have even attempted to refute (and none of them successfully).

Atheists who claim atheism isn't a position and then vigorously defend the "non-position". That is not consistent with having no belief about something. You can't defend a "non-position". Doesn't it make more sense to say you are defending the BELIEF that there are no gods?


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

SFC01 said:


> Any ideas as to what this "plane" looks like or its location ? What else do you think is in the plane ?
> 
> Also, how old do you think god is ? and what do you think he was he doing all those billions of years or more (depending on you answer to how old he is) before the first humans *evolved*?
> 
> Maybe he has had loads of flocks blindly following him throughout his life?


You need to learn the concept of infinity.


----------



## SFC01

StJudeThaddeus said:


> You need to learn the concept of infinity.


and you reality 

so what has he been up to for infinity ?


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

SFC01 said:


> and you reality
> 
> so what has he been up to for infinity ?


So you don't believe in infinity? I have found the atheist who doesn't believe in God, math or science! You truly are the enlightened one 

Read the long post I just wrote above and give me your opinion


----------



## SFC01

StJudeThaddeus said:


> So you don't believe in infinity? I have found the atheist who doesn't believe in God, math or science! You truly are the enlightened one
> 
> Read the long post I just wrote above and give me your opinion


Now now, don't go swinging your handbag at me sunshine, seems like all the questions on this thread are making you realise how extremely ridiculous you are for believing such nonsense - must be hard for you but its not too late to leave this childish crap behind, nothing will happen to you I promise.

So clear up my failure to grasp infinity, maths and science by giving your view in one or two sentences without any waffling bull****, what has god been doing forever and ever and ever in his... ahem "plane" lol ?


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

SFC01 said:


> Now now, don't go swinging your handbag at me sunshine, seems like all the questions on this thread are making you realise how extremely ridiculous you are for believing such nonsense - must be hard for you but its not too late to leave this childish crap behind, nothing will happen to you I promise.
> 
> So clear up my failure to grasp infinity, maths and science by giving your view in one or two sentences without any waffling bull****, what has god been doing forever and ever and ever in his... ahem "plane" lol ?


You're funny. The very question you asked proves you don't understand the concept. Which of cause you don't understand because you don't understand the concept. The answer lies in understanding the concept. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

I have provided you with a long post that shows you how irrational, illogical and inconsistent atheism is. Yet you ignore it and proceed to retreat back into your corner of "Christians are stupid" and "childish crap" when confronted with fact and logic. I've noticed this is a favorite in the limited arsenal of the confused atheist.


----------



## SFC01

StJudeThaddeus said:


> when confronted with fact and logic.


That is just funny as **** and as you lot say good god !!

Just carry on waffling your way through the thread enlightened one !


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

SFC01 said:


> That is just funny as **** and as you lot say good god !!
> 
> Just carry on waffling your way through the thread enlightened one !


Soooo... are you going to admit that some advanced theological arguments, such as the transcendental argument for God, surpass your intellectual capacity or are you just going to carry on giving everyone here a display of your ignorance?


----------



## UKguy

Were you raised Christian by your parents / caregivers or did you discover religion / faith as an adult?


I was briefly sent to a religious school as a young child (not because my parents are religious but because it was the best local school), but I recall thinking even at the age of 5 or 6 that all this talk of Jesus and being told to pray was strange and I simply couldn't get my head around the idea that god is everywhere and watching everything. When they would say God is 'here' I would ask where and why I can't see him. 

Even as an adult I really struggle to understand religion in general. I just don't get how grown adults can believe with absolute conviction that they can talk or pray to some kind of deity. It seems like a massive act of self deception to me and I can't help but feel a lot of it is effectively brainwashed into children from a very young age. I also feel that much of it is based on fear or hate - do X or Y or you will go to hell and so on. 

Oh and why is it that religious folk so often talk in such a verbose and impenetrable style? It is almost like they are trying to hide the apparent ridiculousness of their beliefs...


----------



## SFC01

StJudeThaddeus said:


> advanced theological arguments, such as the transcendental argument for God,


The what now ?

Yeah, way above what my brain cell's can comprehend I`m afraid.

Anyway, as ignorant as I am, and I am, no hard feelings so apologies for maybe taking it in that direction :grin2:


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

SFC01 said:


> StJudeThaddeus said:
> 
> 
> 
> advanced theological arguments, such as the transcendental argument for God,
> 
> 
> 
> The what now ?
> 
> Yeah, way above what my brain cell's can comprehend I`m afraid.
> 
> Anyway, as ignorant as I am, and I am, no hard feelings so apologies for maybe taking it in that direction
Click to expand...

Yeah well, TAG isn't actually a good argument , I just wanted to gauge the knowledge of everyone in this thread on arguments for and against God. Seeing as nobody called me out on TAG I don't know if I should continue using such arguments LOL


----------



## Red October

StJudeThaddeus said:


> Soooo... are you going to admit that some advanced theological arguments, such as the transcendental argument for God, surpass your intellectual capacity or are you just going to carry on giving everyone here a display of your ignorance?


Nice glass house you have there ;^)


----------



## mt moyt

why does god hate gays


----------



## SFC01

UKguy said:


> Oh and why is it that religious folk so often talk in such a *verbose and impenetrable *style? It is almost like they are trying to hide the apparent ridiculousness of their beliefs...


Thanks UKguy, that is what I meant by waffle - just not clever enough to think of such fancy words


----------



## discoveryother

StJudeThaddeus said:


> Obviously in another "plane" of existence. The creator has to exist outside of his creation, I think that's pretty basic knowledge, theist or otherwise.


i thought it was ok to ask you things and i wouldn't get patronized.

i can create things out of other things that share the same kind of material existence with me. i could also make things out of parts of myself. i have no precedent for making something out of nothing. so i don't think this is basic knowledge. also, i feel like the whole point of talking about different "planes of existence" is that each is entirely inaccessible to the others. so i don't know how any tool in this "plane" could affect anything in a different "plane" - like making a gun that can shoot god, is that possible? i wouldn't think so.

anyway, probably don't reply back, cos i'm not asking any more questions.


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

Computers i.e. turning machines are accessible from the outside. A piece of software isn't aware of the developer, until he interacts with the system. Furthermore, a developer could change the laws governing the software. Software is an excellent analogy for God and the universe.


----------



## StJudeThaddeus

UKguy said:


> Were you raised Christian by your parents / caregivers or did you discover religion / faith as an adult?
> 
> I was briefly sent to a religious school as a young child (not because my parents are religious but because it was the best local school), but I recall thinking even at the age of 5 or 6 that all this talk of Jesus and being told to pray was strange and I simply couldn't get my head around the idea that god is everywhere and watching everything. When they would say God is 'here' I would ask where and why I can't see him.
> 
> Even as an adult I really struggle to understand religion in general. I just don't get how grown adults can believe with absolute conviction that they can talk or pray to some kind of deity. It seems like a massive act of self deception to me and I can't help but feel a lot of it is effectively brainwashed into children from a very young age. I also feel that much of it is based on fear or hate - do X or Y or you will go to hell and so on.
> 
> Oh and why is it that religious folk so often talk in such a verbose and impenetrable style? It is almost like they are trying to hide the apparent ridiculousness of their beliefs...


I was Christian then atheist and Christian again.

The law of gravity is just one law and it applies everywhere at the same time. (it "watches over" everything) People work with those kinds of ideas outside of religion all the time.

I'm struggling to see how anything I said is "verbose and impenetrable".


----------



## SFC01

StJudeThaddeus said:


> I was Christian then atheist and Christian again.
> 
> The law of gravity is just one law and it applies everywhere at the same time. (it "watches over" everything) People work with those kinds of ideas outside of religion all the time.
> 
> I'm struggling to see how anything I said is "verbose and impenetrable".


The law of gravity is based on scientific evidence / experimentation etc, its not an idea.


----------



## zomb

If God loves everyone and is everyone does that make him a pansexual mixed race trans with a physical and mental disability with a split personality and both loves and hates Marmite?


----------



## discoveryother

StJudeThaddeus said:


> Computers i.e. turning machines are accessible from the outside. A piece of software isn't aware of the developer, until he interacts with the system. Furthermore, a developer could change the laws governing the software. Software is an excellent analogy for God and the universe.


(since you did reply i guess this is a debating thing now)

analogy? it's an excellent example of how complex logical systems exist in matter, just like the human mind does.

try replacing your PCs heat sink with your hand and then come back and tell me that software exists on another "plane". go put a hole in your head and stick your hand in there. it's all physical, material, matter.


----------



## Going Sane

how are you able to deal with "know it all" bitter atheist ?
Who would most likely be the most religious if they lived in a different era lol


----------



## relm1

Should the bible be interpreted as literal, figuratively, or contextually? Remember your response will put you at odds with a great percentage of christians. My background previously an evangelical christian now an atheist. I am open minded and will be happy to be proven wrong if you have evidence. So think of me as an atheist who wants to be a christian.


----------



## Mc Borg

andy1984thesecond said:


> it's all physical, material, matter.


Can you give me a logically sound deductive argument showing that to be the case? Even if physicalism were the case, I seriously have no idea how that could even be known to any degree, much less enough to be stated like it's a fact.

In fact there are also good arguments against physicalism. Intentionality, etc.


----------



## mt moyt

StJudeThaddeus said:


> I'm well versed in theology and thought it would be fun.


do u still think this is fun lol


----------



## discoveryother

Mc Borg said:


> Can you give me a logically sound deductive argument showing that to be the case? Even if physicalism were the case, I seriously have no idea how that could even be known to any degree, much left stated like it's a fact.


no, i don't think i can - or if i can, i probably won't, because it would be a waste of time.

my conclusions are largely based on the impossibilities of dualism - the mechanism which one "world" interacts with the other "world" necessarily has to have parts of both (at least some kind of sensor in one, and the output in the other), but dualism requires the complete separation of the two "worlds" (how is the data transmitted from the sensor to the output?). any bridge between the two just introduces another "world" which needs more bridges. as in the previous example of computers, the software/hardware dualism is only instrumental/conceptual, not actual (we know that the software exists physically as well). this is the same as with the mind. now, go ahead and believe in dualism if you like, but i just think its absurd, and it can't exist in a logical way, without some miraculous intervention to magically transmit that data. if you're going to allow that miraculous intervention in your thinking here, then you should throw away logic altogether, because you'd have to permit the same intervention in any other scenario, depending on the whims of some deity or what-have-you.

after accepting this, the next step is simple. if everything shares the same kind of fundamental being, then it is only semantics whether we call it mind or matter, because we are clearly talking about the same thing. for the sake of coherence, i call it matter, because it is cognitively easier that way for me.

when i say the same kind of fundamental being, i mean things like place. why do physical differences in brains produce different minds? it would seem like both mind and matter have some property of being in a place. shared fundamental properties doesn't sound like dualism to me. now two things can't occupy the same space (except instrumentally/conceptually), that's a fundamental law of being in a place. that definitely rules out any other "plane".


----------



## sad1231234

Why does the Bible condone slavery and rape?

Why was God such a warmongering deity, requiring animal sacrifice and conquering other nations, if God is loving and peaceful? Sounds to me like the Abrahamic God was a figure fabricated by the leaders of the Hebrews. 

Why were the 10 commandments made obselete by a God that "never changes his ways?"

How could the flood have happened when it has been calculated that the floods are physically impossible, due to multiple mathematical conundrums?

How can the Bible explain certain findings and facts that seem to indicate to evolution rather than design, as examples of such facts, such as human vestigial bodyparts, can demonstrate?

Why did Jesus have come down to Earth to die? I would guess as a sort of example or demonstration by God/Trinity, but the bible clearly states that Jesus died to save us from our sins. Why does someone need to die to save us from our sins?

Why is Christianity seen as the only true religion, when there are other religions that have almost as many followers, and in some cases, even less ridiculous beliefs than Christianity?

Is hell eternal? Because scripture seems to mention that hell is in fact eternal, and that you dont have to be a murdurer to go to hell. But then why did the Apostles preach later on that hell is not in fact eternal, when the Apostles were baptized with the holy spirit and directly intuitive to God's commandments?


----------



## Mc Borg

@andy1984thesecond

That's what I thought. :b I'm not sure why you would think it is a waste of time. You stated that it was the case, not that it was probably the case, hence you must have a logically deductive argument showing it to be the case for it to be rationally held. I'm not religious if that's what you're insinuating. I consider myself a pyrrhonist skeptic/fallibilist; I'm open to any and all possibilities, so I don't think it would be a waste of time at all.

With that said. If that can't be done, the rest of your argument falls apart. For all you know, you could be living in a simulation and "brains" and all that you think exists are merely a part of that simulated reality and don't actually exist. The real "actual" world's laws could be vastly foreign to ours. So yeah, unless you can show that physicalism is the case, these are merely assumptions. Secondly, even under physicalism, in doesn't seem in principle impossible that we be in a simulated reality.

As for the problem of interaction. The very same thing can be said about consciousness and more specifically intentionality arising from the physical; I've never seen it explained how that is supposed to work under physicalism. I've only seen assurances that it does. Your argument is essentially "I don't see how it could be the case, therefore it is not the case." The thing is, we don't know enough about consciousness to even speculate on what is or isn't impossible. Maybe physicalism is the case, maybe it's not. Maybe panpsychism is the case, maybe not. Maybe some sort of dualism is the case (whether property dualism or substance dualism, or Karl Popper's interactionist non-substance dualism or whatever). We don't know enough to make statements like that, and certainly not statements of certainty.


----------



## Tetragammon

Going crazy said:


> how are you able to deal with "know it all" bitter atheist ?
> Who would most likely be the most religious if they lived in a different era lol


Or we'd be the ones getting stoned/hanged/otherwise murdered. You know, because we value intellectual honesty above herd mentality...

My parents did their utmost to make me ultra-religious. It didn't work.


----------



## discoveryother

Mc Borg said:


> @andy1984thesecond
> That's what I thought. :b I'm not sure why you would think it is a waste of time. You stated that it was the case, not that it was probably the case, hence you must have a logically deductive argument showing it to be the case for it to be rationally held.


i think it would be a waste of time because i don't believe in the magic of logic or Truth. i say what i think and i don't need to do anything. you mean "must have..." to in order to satisfy your sense of reasoning. i'm not here to convince you of anything. i often find logical analysis tedious and wander off when it becomes inconvenient.



Mc Borg said:


> For all you know, you could be living in a simulation and "brains" and all that you think exists are merely a part of that simulated reality and don't actually exist. The real "actual" world's laws could be vastly foreign to ours. So yeah, unless you can show that physicalism is the case, these are merely assumptions. Secondly, even under physicalism, in doesn't seem in principle impossible that we be in a simulated reality.


i have no problem with being a simulation. simulations exist in the "real" world, and are material things. i have said in another thread that minds are simulations.



Mc Borg said:


> As for the problem of interaction. The very same thing can be said about consciousness and more specifically intentionality arising from the physical; I've never seen it explained how that is supposed to work under physicalism. I've only seen assurances that it does.


i don't have a problem with this intentionality thing you are talking about.



Mc Borg said:


> Your argument is essentially "I don't see how it could be the case, therefore it is not the case."


impossible in logic and therefore impossible in practice is a valid argument. "i don't see how it could be" = it's illogical to my reasoning, please elucidate how it could be logical by your reasoning.



Mc Borg said:


> The thing is, we don't know enough about consciousness to even speculate on what is or isn't impossible. Maybe physicalism is the case, maybe it's not. Maybe panpsychism is the case, maybe not. Maybe some sort of dualism is the case (whether property dualism or substance dualism, or Karl Popper's interactionist non-substance dualism or whatever). We don't know enough to make statements like that, and certainly not statements of certainty.


i apply my reasoning/imagination and i state my conclusion/fantasy. i don't care what you think about it unless you can add something of value. you want to live in a world where no one can say anything. you don't know enough to say we don't know enough.


----------



## YogiJ

It makes more sense to me that there is some kind of higher power than what we perceive. We live in a fantastically complex Universe. Every portion of creation is teeming with activity from the smallest subatomic particles to the macroscopic clusters of galaxies. Every cell in our bodies has information encoded in it that is more complicated than the city of Tokyo. Any sensible person can see that nature is intelligent. God cannot be found within the mind, you must feel God within your heart.


----------



## Going Sane

Tetragammon said:


> Or we'd be the ones getting stoned/hanged/otherwise murdered. You know, because we value intellectual honesty above herd mentality...
> 
> My parents did their utmost to make me ultra-religious. It didn't work.


this question was for the christian, not one of the bitter atheist that i was speaking about lol jk, did ya'll crucify the christian already xD
Money and materialism are the new gods that we worship, media is not dedicated to religion, people follow what is popular and cool, more than logic , they follow what is repeated to them through the popular arts like mainstream music and tv and naturally many of us rebel against our parents. The era we live is different, you are not forced to be religious nor is it considered culturally cool for our generation to do so. Atheist have their own faith in there not being a God. They have their own beliefs that they expect others to follow but arent always as scientifically proven as they wish. Anyways thats my view. I think people's personality says more about them than what they believe will happen once they pass away


----------



## UKguy

Interesting that most of the difficult questions asked have basically gone unanswered.


----------



## Tetragammon

Going crazy said:


> Money and materialism are the new gods that we worship, media is not dedicated to religion, people follow what is popular and cool, more than logic , they follow what is repeated to them through the popular arts like mainstream music and tv and naturally many of us rebel against our parents. The era we live is different, you are not forced to be religious nor is it considered culturally cool for our generation to do so.


Wait, hold on, let me get this straight. You're saying you believe that atheists are just doing it to be "culturally cool"? Or because of mainstream music and TV? Really??? Wow.

You have no idea how difficult and painful it is to break away from your parents' religion, to risk alienating your whole family and what few friends you have just because you don't believe as they do. I had a best friend since middle school who completely stopped talking to me after I came out about my atheism. All because, what, I'm a "bad person" just because I don't believe in a magical sky-daddy? Because I don't need the threat of hell or promise of heaven to be good? We're judged, demonized and ostracized by the really serious religious types. In many states here in the US at least, atheists aren't even allowed to hold public office!

Trust me, it's not at all "cool" to be atheist. But I can't be anything else without losing my integrity. I'm sure there are some atheists who just want to be "trendy" but the vast majority of us are not like that at all. As I implied in my last post, most of us would be killed in any other era for our lack of belief -- because we wouldn't be willing to "pretend" and could not be "forced" into it.



Going crazy said:


> Atheist have their own faith in there not being a God. They have their own beliefs that they expect others to follow but arent always as scientifically proven as they wish.


There's no "faith" involved at all. It's simply a lack of belief in God(s). There's no dogma, no scriptures and no services. There's no "belief." I mean MAYBE if you're talking about United Humanism or something I could understand where you're coming from, but not all atheists get into that sort of thing. I'm perfectly happy living a totally irreligious life. And logic and reason aren't beliefs -- they're fundamental principles of life.



Going crazy said:


> I think people's personality says more about them than what they believe will happen once they pass away


I agree. And in my experience, religion tends to do terrible things to the personality. It makes people very judgmental and self-righteous.


----------



## SFC01

YogiJ said:


> It makes more sense to me that there is some kind of higher power than what we perceive. We live in a fantastically complex Universe. Every portion of creation is teeming with activity from the smallest subatomic particles to the macroscopic clusters of galaxies. Every cell in our bodies has information encoded in it that is more complicated than the city of Tokyo. Any sensible person can see that nature is intelligent. God cannot be found within the mind, you must feel God within your heart.


because you can feel it in your heart - what does that even mean and what has that got to do with anything about the existence of an intelligent designer or reality?

Like most of us you cannot comprehend the sheer timescales and sizes we are talking about for these things to happen.

A god makes more sense to you because you lack knowledge in all these areas to explain what you see - just like all the other people over time who believed in the god of the sun, moon, etc

I lack knowledge too but the one thing that doesn't make any sense whatsoever is believing that a god made everything - why the **** would that be the case ? and if he did exist, why would this god be like the one that people on earth have claimed him to be like - watching over us, arks and all that biblical nonsense.

If you want to see how ridiculously insignificant we are, take a look at the pale blue dot, a photo of earth from an *extremely* small distance away in cosmological terms.


----------



## Going Sane

Tetragammon said:


> Wait, hold on, let me get this straight. You're saying you believe that atheists are just doing it to be "culturally cool"? Or because of mainstream music and TV? Really??? Wow.
> 
> You have no idea how difficult and painful it is to break away from your parents' religion, to risk alienating your whole family and what few friends you have just because you don't believe as they do. I had a best friend since middle school who completely stopped talking to me after I came out about my atheism. All because, what, I'm a "bad person" just because I don't believe in a magical sky-daddy? Because I don't need the threat of hell or promise of heaven to be good? We're judged, demonized and ostracized by the really serious religious types. In many states here in the US at least, atheists aren't even allowed to hold public office!
> 
> Trust me, it's not at all "cool" to be atheist. But I can't be anything else without losing my integrity. I'm sure there are some atheists who just want to be "trendy" but the vast majority of us are not like that at all. As I implied in my last post, most of us would be killed in any other era for our lack of belief -- because we wouldn't be willing to "pretend" and could not be "forced" into it.
> 
> There's no "faith" involved at all. It's simply a lack of belief in God(s). There's no dogma, no scriptures and no services. There's no "belief." I mean MAYBE if you're talking about United Humanism or something I could understand where you're coming from, but not all atheists get into that sort of thing. I'm perfectly happy living a totally irreligious life. And logic and reason aren't beliefs -- they're fundamental principles of life.
> 
> I agree. And in my experience, religion tends to do terrible things to the personality. It makes people very judgmental and self-righteous.


ok, i get ya, yea, and you are just a little bit older than me, so im sure you might have gone through a stage or live in an area where religion is still a considerably big part of life. 
And for many atheist it probably took balls to take that position.

But generally speaking , nowadays it is tolerable and acceptable. Not necessarily cool maybe. But there isnt a ridicule from mainstream outlers and mainstream culture that says there is something wrong with you for being an atheist, in most cases it is the other way around, where they make fun of religion on tv constantly, and everything from music to tv shows are very corrupt and challenge many values that religious people hold.

and i call it a faith since an atheist does believe that there is no God. So i feel like they have faith in that. It requires some faith since science cannot necesarily prove it with certainty, we havent reached that level and are far from it.


----------



## SFC01

Going crazy said:


> and i call it a faith since an atheist does believe that there is no God. So i feel like they have faith in that. It requires some faith since science cannot necesarily prove it with certainty, we havent reached that level and are far from it.


there is not even the tiniest of hints of there being a creator, even less so than the ones many believe in so it requires very little faith to be an atheist or non-believer and apart from threads like these, religion or god doesn't even come into the equation for me, and I would guess that is the same for most atheists.

God is irrelevant to us and we don't spend much time on the subject so faith doesn't really come into it.

Anyway, faith would suggest we are clinging on to some hope that a creator isn't real. We are not saying necessarily that we don't want a creator, just at this moment in time, with the knowledge open to all of us, it really isn't sensible to believe so why waste our time contemplating it?


----------



## YogiJ

SFC01 said:


> because you can feel it in your heart - what does that even mean and what has that got to do with anything about the existence of an intelligent designer or reality?
> 
> Like most of us you cannot comprehend the sheer timescales and sizes we are talking about for these things to happen.
> 
> A god makes more sense to you because you lack knowledge in all these areas to explain what you see - just like all the other people over time who believed in the god of the sun, moon, etc
> 
> I lack knowledge too but the one thing that doesn't make any sense whatsoever is believing that a god made everything - why the **** would that be the case ? and if he did exist, why would this god be like the one that people on earth have claimed him to be like - watching over us, arks and all that biblical nonsense.
> 
> If you want to see how ridiculously insignificant we are, take a look at the pale blue dot, a photo of earth from an *extremely* small distance away in cosmological terms.


God is the supreme being who creates worlds. We are not separate from His energy. We are made off the same light as God as is each life form in the Universe. Do you really believe that you are just a physical body? You are not made out of matter. You are alive with consciousness. You are not a physical being. When you die your soul is what remains, your spiritual essence. If you look for God with your heart you will begin to see Him in everything.


----------



## SFC01

YogiJ said:


> God is the supreme being who creates worlds. We are not separate from His energy. We are made off the same light as God as is each life form in the Universe. Do you really believe that you are just a physical body? You are not made out of matter. You are alive with consciousness. You are not a physical being. When you die your soul is what remains, your spiritual essence. If you look for God with your heart you will begin to see Him in everything.


Sorry but that is laughable bull****.

What do you think consciousness is made of the ? Spiritual essence, whaaaat ?

Consciousness is a complex physical process within the brain, no mumbo jumbo involved. Why is that hard for some people to understand?

When the brain dies everything you were ever about is gone forever - its not hard to grasp really - *and unless science or technological advances only - *come up with some clever ****, that ain't going to change.


----------



## marsia

Ok, so I admit I didn't read through all the posts because I am in a happy mood and didn't want to read through a bunch of bitter, challenging posts. So please excuse me if you already answered this. I am married to a Christian, though I am more of a Buddhist, but I have always wanted to understand the Holy Trinity. The Father and Son make a lot of sense to me. Jesus can have direct contact with God from living from his heart and thus doing what is right despite how dire the consequences (like being crucified). He also follows the love in his heart for humanity, no matter how messed up the people he teaches are. He deeply accepts his human condition. But what is the Holy Ghost, and how does it relate to being human and to living a life aligned with one's deeper spirituality? Thanks for answering people's questions about your faith - that's so cool!


----------



## Going Sane

SFC01 said:


> there is not even the tiniest of hints of there being a creator


that statement is more subjective than scientific. You can in a way preach about your faith in something that isnt confirmed and we are unable to confirm, you are doing it now. We are more backward as a specie than we think, still have a long way to go my son, before we get some clear answer , till then , you will depend on your faith and can preach it, just like a religious person will preach


----------



## SFC01

Going crazy said:


> that statement is more subjective than scientific. You can in a way preach about your faith in something that isnt confirmed and we are unable to confirm, you are doing it now. We are more backward as a specie than we think, still have a long way to go my *son*, before we get some clear answer , till then , you will depend on your faith and can preach it, just like a religious person will preach


Dad, when did you learn to use a computer ? Did you get the socks I sent for xmas?

Anything goes then - what ever we can dream up !


----------



## Going Sane

marsia said:


> Ok, so I admit I didn't read through all the posts because I am in a happy mood and didn't want to read through a bunch of bitter, challenging posts. So please excuse me if you already answered this. I am married to a Christian, though I am more of a Buddhist, but I have always wanted to understand the Holy Trinity. The Father and Son make a lot of sense to me. Jesus can have direct contact with God from living from his heart and thus doing what is right despite how dire the consequences (like being crucified). He also follows the love in his heart for humanity, no matter how messed up the people he teaches are. He deeply accepts his human condition. But what is the Holy Ghost, and how does it relate to being human and to living a life aligned with one's deeper spirituality? Thanks for answering people's questions about your faith - that's so cool!


im not sure if the OP will answer, i think the person was drowned in bitter replies xD i see no signs of the OP ,


----------



## Going Sane

SFC01 said:


> Dad, when did you learn to use a computer ? Did you get the socks I sent for xmas?
> 
> Anything goes then - what ever we can dream up !


yes child, now tell me, where is the poor person who started this thread ? what did ya'll do to him/her?! xD


----------



## SFC01

Going crazy said:


> yes child, now tell me, where is the poor person who started this thread ? what did ya'll do to him/her?! xD


nothing to do with me Dad, I`ve been polite like you always told me.


----------



## Tetragammon

Going crazy said:


> and i call it a faith since an atheist does believe that there is no God. So i feel like they have faith in that. It requires some faith since science cannot necesarily prove it with certainty, we havent reached that level and are far from it.


This is a point that the vast majority of believers get wrong, proabably because faith is central to your worldview and you can't imagine living without it.

The majority of atheists have no such "faith." We don't know for certain that God(s) don't exist. We simply do not believe in him/them. But disbelief does not require any "faith" or belief -- see how that would be contradictory? Just like I don't need "faith" to disbelieve in ghosts or UFOs or a pink unicorn who lives on the far side of Mars. I'm perfectly willing to change if we ever do discover concrete evidence of any of the above -- but I find it extremely unlikely. It's all about probabilities to me. It's just like you don't need any "faith" to disbelieve in old gods like Zeus or Ra -- because belief in such gods is no longer common.

Now, if we're talking about so-called "strong" atheists who assert with certainty that "there is no God," then yes, I suppose that requires a certain amount of "faith" -- though I'd use a different word. It is a form of "belief." But most of us make no such assertion. We're content to live our lives entirely outside the realm of "spirituality" and "faith" because they don't make sense to us.



Going crazy said:


> where they make fun of religion on tv constantly, and everything from music to tv shows are very corrupt and challenge many values that religious people hold.


I'm sorry but you sound like you have a persecution complex. This is another problem frequent to religions -- you think that somehow your beliefs should be beyond question. But that should NEVER be the case, for any kind of belief or worldview! We should question everything. And challenging the validity of religious beliefs does not make one "corrupt." That's a dangerous line of thinking and one of the main methods of control for religions.


----------



## SFC01

Tetragammon said:


> I'm sorry but you sound like you have a persecution complex. This is another problem frequent to religions -- you think that somehow your beliefs should be beyond question.


One of my biggest issues with religion, and its good to see the support that religion gets for this from the authorities is starting to die away, well in my country anyway.


----------



## Going Sane

Tetragammon said:


> This is a point that the vast majority of believers get wrong, proabably because faith is central to your worldview and you can't imagine living without it.
> 
> The majority of atheists have no such "faith." We don't know for certain that God(s) don't exist. We simply do not believe in him/them. But disbelief does not require any "faith" or belief -- see how that would be contradictory? Just like I don't need "faith" to disbelieve in ghosts or UFOs or a pink unicorn who lives on the far side of Mars. I'm perfectly willing to change if we ever do discover concrete evidence of any of the above -- but I find it extremely unlikely. It's all about probabilities to me. It's just like you don't need any "faith" to disbelieve in old gods like Zeus or Ra -- because belief in such gods is no longer common.
> 
> Now, if we're talking about so-called "strong" atheists who assert with certainty that "there is no God," then yes, I suppose that requires a certain amount of "faith" -- though I'd use a different word. It is a form of "belief." But most of us make no such assertion. We're content to live our lives entirely outside the realm of "spirituality" and "faith" because they don't make sense to us.
> 
> I'm sorry but you sound like you have a persecution complex. This is another problem frequent to religions -- you think that somehow your beliefs should be beyond question. But that should NEVER be the case, for any kind of belief or worldview! We should question everything. And challenging the validity of religious beliefs does not make one "corrupt." That's a dangerous line of thinking and one of the main methods of control for religions.


you sound more like agnostic then, unless you expect others to be atheist, then you do kind of fall into a similar category are religious folks. You can put down religious practices and condemn it for its past actions, as well as recognize how it was used in the past by empires and world powers, but when you tell people that there is no God and that they should see things the way you do then you become an atheist. Because you are preaching a unconfirmed believe to people, you are a believer in something that isnt confirmed yet, if you are this type of person. Although i guess i can sort of see your point, i am sipiritual yet i dont expect others to be this way.


----------



## Tetragammon

Going crazy said:


> you sound more like agnostic then, unless you expect others to be atheist, then you do kind of fall into a similar category are religious folks. You can put down religious practices and condemn it for its past actions, as well as recognize how it was used in the past by empires and world powers, but when you tell people that there is no God and that they should see things the way you do then you become an atheist. Because you are preaching a unconfirmed believe to people, you are a believer in something that isnt confirmed yet, if you are this type of person. Although i guess i can sort of see your point, i am sipiritual yet i dont expect others to be this way.


I generally don't have problem with believers themselves, unless they're too zealous or violent about it. I have immense respect for many religious people; I just think they've been misled. I really don't care what any one person decides to believe -- as long as it doesn't affect me. But all too often it does. Like zealots who insist that the US is a "Christian nation" and thus we should enact laws that enforce Christian values. Or Christian efforts to overturn marriage equality just because they believe that homosexuality is a "sin." Or even religious people who insist on putting their idols and icons in public spaces but cry foul when other "religions" do the same.

Really, my problem is with _organized religion_ specifically, which controls and essentially enslaves people. No religion should be "allowed" to control non-believers in any way! I don't agree with agnosticism because it seems like a cop-out to me -- they simply say they don't know and leave it at that, which still gives too much power to theists because they "could" be right. I don't believe in any God(s) and I do "expect" perfectly rational, well-read and intellectually honest people to agree. But organized religion indoctrinates people from birth, rendering them incapable of thinking rationally and being honest.

The bottom line here is that atheism is NOT a belief. It's a lack of belief. And we don't "preach" atheism so much as we try to educate people about logic, rationality and free thought. But these things are anathema to organized religion for good reason. So your priests or pastors or rabbis or whatever warn you against them -- because they want your continued support.


----------



## ivan91

why did god give me acne ?


----------



## YogiJ

SFC01 said:


> Sorry but that is laughable bull****.
> 
> What do you think consciousness is made of the ? Spiritual essence, whaaaat ?
> 
> Consciousness is a complex physical process within the brain, no mumbo jumbo involved. Why is that hard for some people to understand?
> 
> When the brain dies everything you were ever about is gone forever - its not hard to grasp really - *and unless science or technological advances only - *come up with some clever ****, that ain't going to change.


Consciousness is immaterial and is even beyond the quantum level. There are many scientists beginning to realize that consciousness is the unified field. Meaning that all of us are interconnected and are ultimately one source, one essence, one everything. There is only the illusion of being a separate individual but in reality are all God's energy.


----------



## Overdrive

*"talos the mighty! Talos the unerring! Talos the unassailable!"﻿*


----------



## WillYouStopDave

How do you know that God is perfect? One of the main things that is supposed to make God special is that he knows everything. Well, that's all well and good but......how do you know? What if he isn't perfect and you just can't tell because you're just a human?


----------



## SFC01

YogiJ said:


> Consciousness is immaterial and is even beyond the quantum level. There are many scientists beginning to realize that consciousness is the unified field. Meaning that all of us are interconnected and are ultimately one source, one essence, one everything. There is only the illusion of being a separate individual but in reality are all God's energy.


Now you are being silly.

If, deep down, you genuinely believe what you just wrote, then you should be concerned.


----------



## YogiJ

SFC01 said:


> Now you are being silly.
> 
> If, deep down, you genuinely believe what you just wrote, then you should be concerned.


Whether you realize it or not, you are infinite awareness having a human experience.


----------



## SFC01

YogiJ said:


> Whether you realize it or not, you are infinite awareness having a human experience.


Whether you realise it or not, you are a few peas short of a casserole.


----------



## Tetragammon

YogiJ said:


> There are many scientists beginning to realize that consciousness is the unified field.


Literally laughed out loud at this one! I'd love to see your source on this, please.


----------



## SFC01

Tetragammon said:


> Literally laughed out loud at this one! I'd love to see your source on this, please.


Its probably one of these "scientists" who has mastered the art of quantum healing with his magic fingers, one of those nutjobs.


----------



## Going Sane

Tetragammon said:


> I generally don't have problem with believers themselves, unless they're too zealous or violent about it. I have immense respect for many religious people; I just think they've been misled. I really don't care what any one person decides to believe -- as long as it doesn't affect me. But all too often it does. Like zealots who insist that the US is a "Christian nation" and thus we should enact laws that enforce Christian values. Or Christian efforts to overturn marriage equality just because they believe that homosexuality is a "sin." Or even religious people who insist on putting their idols and icons in public spaces but cry foul when other "religions" do the same.
> 
> Really, my problem is with _organized religion_ specifically, which controls and essentially enslaves people. No religion should be "allowed" to control non-believers in any way! I don't agree with agnosticism because it seems like a cop-out to me -- they simply say they don't know and leave it at that, which still gives too much power to theists because they "could" be right. I don't believe in any God(s) and I do "expect" perfectly rational, well-read and intellectually honest people to agree. But organized religion indoctrinates people from birth, rendering them incapable of thinking rationally and being honest.
> 
> The bottom line here is that atheism is NOT a belief. It's a lack of belief. And we don't "preach" atheism so much as we try to educate people about logic, rationality and free thought. But these things are anathema to organized religion for good reason. So your priests or pastors or rabbis or whatever warn you against them -- because they want your continued support.


Alright, yea, i get what you mean. 
Although i still point out that all sides on that topic feel the same about what they expect others to believe. 
I am a spiritual person and i agree that religion was once used as a means to control or exploit people. However i feel that in the western world there is new methods to do this, and laws in the state are more influence by the market and huge multinationals and powerful interest, than by religious institutions. There is not the same influence and i dont think it is a problem as it once was.


----------



## Going Sane

SFC01 said:


> nothing to do with me Dad, I`ve been polite like you always told me.


that's my boy xD


----------



## Mc Borg

Tetragammon said:


> Really, my problem is with _organized religion_ specifically, which controls and essentially enslaves people. No religion should be "allowed" to control non-believers in any way! I don't agree with agnosticism because it seems like a cop-out to me -- they simply say they don't know and leave it at that, which still gives too much power to theists because they "could" be right. I don't believe in any God(s) and I do "expect" perfectly rational, well-read and intellectually honest people to agree. But organized religion indoctrinates people from birth, rendering them incapable of thinking rationally and being honest.
> 
> The bottom line here is that atheism is NOT a belief. It's a lack of belief. And we don't "preach" atheism so much as we try to educate people about logic, rationality and free thought. But these things are anathema to organized religion for good reason. So your priests or pastors or rabbis or whatever warn you against them -- because they want your continued support.


So I see that our previous conversation had no effect on your opinion.

What do you have to say about non-indoctrinated atheists that change their beliefs (e.g. Antony Flew's deism)?

As to your other point - you're conflating suspension of judgement with believing (probably) not-p (atheism). Secondly, in our last conversation you used a logically contradictory principle in the very same thread that you said "believers need to be educated in logic" so you have a nerve to be talking about educating other people in logic.

But since you brought up logic. Give me a sound deductive argument showing that theism is necessarily irrational. I'd like to hear it.


----------



## Tetragammon

@Mc Borg

Do you really want to get into this _again_??

I'm sure that many atheists have changed their views over the years. That's fine; good for them. Their reasons must differ greatly from person to person, so any guess I make would be a sweeping generalization. And I've never heard of Antony Flew and don't feel like Googling him right now, thanks anyway. I'm not a professor, nor am I a philosopher. I'm not even very good at articulating my thoughts, as you know. But let's see if I can make it simple for you this time.

There is not, nor has there ever been, any evidence of the existence of god(s). Agreed? That is assuming that "feelings" cannot be sufficient indicators of truth and that we don't automatically ascribe unknowns to a magical deity for the hell of it. No claim with respect to "spiritual experiences" has ever been scientifically verified, and no hypothesis regarding the "spiritual" or "divine" has ever been repeatable. What leads one person to believe in "God" doesn't work for everyone else. Hence the multitude of religions in our world.

What we do have are records of thousands of different religions which vary greatly by time and geography; each indiginous population had its own creation myths, stories, pantheons, etc, before the rise of the Abrahamic religions. So "God" has meant very different things to different peoples throughout the ages; hell, monotheism itself is relatively new. Thus it seems to me that it is completely irrational to believe that any one specific God or pantheon of gods exists, while the thousands of others do not -- especially considering the complete lack of evidence for any of them.

I could go into plenty of other arguments like the problem of evil or the paradox of perfection but I'm sure you've heard them all before. Go ahead and tear me apart, as usual. But I doubt you have any arguments strong enough to change my mind. Believe me, I've given this a LOT of thought! >


----------



## SFC01

Mc Borg said:


> But since you brought up logic. Give me a sound deductive argument showing that theism is necessarily irrational. I'd like to hear it.


Non believers are more interested in how the universe works, where the maths, science, experimentation etc points us too, and so far, all of that leads us to the view that theism is irrational.

Deductive arguments don't really apply when we want to learn about the nature of reality.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

SFC01 said:


> Deductive arguments don't really apply when we want to learn about the nature of reality.


 Well, really, I don't think it's a bright idea to encourage people to learn absolutely everything. If that was even possible. It's probably not. But we know for a fact that it's very possible for people to learn enough to be dangerous. Which is scary enough with current technology and knowledge.

I think the basic functionality of mild religion as a deterrent to people venturing into places that maybe we shouldn't go is probably well founded and even rational in a way. Of course I don't know that it was ever intended to restrain people for their own good. I think it mostly evolved from plain ignorance and perhaps even malevolent authoritarianism.

Stealing from Jurassic Park (I guess). Just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should.


----------



## SFC01

WillYouStopDave said:


> Well, really, I don't think it's a bright idea to encourage people to learn absolutely everything. If that was even possible. It's probably not. But we know for a fact that it's very possible for people to learn enough to be dangerous. Which is scary enough with current technology and knowledge.
> 
> I think the basic functionality of mild religion as a deterrent to people venturing into places that maybe we shouldn't go is probably well founded and even rational in a way. Of course I don't know that it was ever intended to restrain people for their own good. I think it mostly evolved from plain ignorance and perhaps even malevolent authoritarianism.
> 
> Stealing from Jurassic Park (I guess). Just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should.


Its certainly a valid pov and, I agree that knowing everything could well be beyond us, but that isn't going to stop people trying to get there and on the flip side, the pursuit could well bring many benefits to us and the planet in general, as well as many dangers.

I think there is some predisposal in us humans that make us want to believe in certain things, and that the end is not the end, but religion to me was built in a time when people in comparison to today knew **** all about the nature of the universe.

If for example, someone came up with a new religion now, with say less stretches of the imagination than mainstream religions today, I doubt very much it would catch on and most people would see it as a being a crackpot idea.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

SFC01 said:


> Its certainly a valid pov and, I agree that knowing everything could well be beyond us, but that isn't going to stop people trying to get there and on the flip side, the pursuit could well bring many benefits to us and the planet in general, as well as many dangers.


 But of course that's just what I'm talking about. If it's not enough to rely on common sense to keep people from trying to do things they probably shouldn't, perhaps it isn't an altogether bad thing to have a bunch of irrational superstitious people as a counterweight. They have obviously not stopped "progress" so far. They have been effective in slowing it down in some ways and in some areas. If that's all they do, I can't say I'm entirely against it. Being forced to proceed slowly forces people to think about what they're doing. Which doesn't always help but still.


----------



## SFC01

WillYouStopDave said:


> But of course that's just what I'm talking about. If it's not enough to rely on common sense to keep people from trying to do things they probably shouldn't, perhaps it isn't an altogether bad thing to have a bunch of irrational superstitious people as a counterweight. They have obviously not stopped "progress" so far. They have been effective in slowing it down in some ways and in some areas. If that's all they do, I can't say I'm entirely against it. Being forced to proceed slowly forces people to think about what they're doing. Which doesn't always help but still.


Yeah but non religious people are just as capable of ensuring we tread carefully and in my opinion are probably better placed to put the brakes on scientific advances where required because they will do it for the right reasons and not just because they think for some silly reason that god won't approve.

Being religious doesn't automatically mean that they cant be a dangerous lunatic, you find these people in all walks.


----------



## Mc Borg

Tetragammon said:


> @Mc Borg
> 
> Do you really want to get into this _again_??


Well you did make the same claim _again_, so... . A point that I thouroughly demolished, but I guess I gotta do it again.



> I'm sure that many atheists have changed their views over the years. That's fine; good for them. Their reasons must differ greatly from person to person, so any guess I make would be a sweeping generalization. And I've never heard of Antony Flew and don't feel like Googling him right now, thanks anyway. I'm not a professor, nor am I a philosopher. I'm not even very good at articulating my thoughts, as you know. But let's see if I can make it simple for you this time.


Flew was one of the most famous atheist philosophers of religion, most well known for his paper _The Presumption of Atheism_. I was just curious how you square that with the _sweeping generalization_ that perfectly rational, well-read and intellectually honest people ought to be atheists and that those that aren't are only so due to indoctrination/lack of ability to be think rationally?

But for someone that's so well read, I find it interesting that you don't even know one of the strongest defenders (well former) of atheism.



> There is not, nor has there ever been, any evidence of the existence of god(s). Agreed? That is assuming that "feelings" cannot be sufficient indicators of truth and that we don't automatically ascribe unknowns to a magical deity for the hell of it. No claim with respect to "spiritual experiences" has ever been scientifically verified, and no hypothesis regarding the "spiritual" or "divine" has ever been repeatable. What leads one person to believe in "God" doesn't work for everyone else. Hence the multitude of religions in our world.


I already answered this in our previous discussion. It depends on how you define evidence. If you simply mean "proof," then of course not. But as I said, there also is no proof for naturalism or physicalism. If by evidence you're talking about something like proposition p is more likely than not considering evidence s, then there is evidence (for both sides). It may not be particularly compelling evidence (I don't think either side has offered anything like it), but it's evidence nonetheless. But since you're a defender of evidentialist principles, what evidence is there for a naturalistic description of reality? Those that claim with certainty that all that exists is physical reality and such and such follows from this, are just as lost as those that claim with certainty that God exists and want you to do this that and the other. They're two sides of the same coin.

But as I showed in that article that I posted in the other thread (which I don't think you read, considering you're giving the same argument). Absence of evidence for a proposition p does not give you justification for believing it's negation (not-p). You need to weigh the evidence for both sides. By this logic, the lack of evidence that someone that has been missing is alive would have us conclude that that person is dead, which is absurd. If we don't have evidence either way, we ought to suspend judgement (i.e. remain agnostic). And yes, believing that not-p is a belief - not a lack of belief.



> What we do have are records of thousands of different religions which vary greatly by time and geography; each indiginous population had its own creation myths, stories, pantheons, etc, before the rise of the Abrahamic religions. So "God" has meant very different things to different peoples throughout the ages; hell, monotheism itself is relatively new. Thus it seems to me that it is completely irrational to believe that any one specific God or pantheon of gods exists, while the thousands of others do not -- especially considering the complete lack of evidence for any of them.


Naturalism, physicalism, and atheism are just other metaphysical views of reality within that collection of positions. As I said in my other post, it doesn't deserve special epistemic status just because. It needs defense to be rationally held. But since you're so well verse in rational thinking and well read, you should have known this. 

But again, you used a logically contradictory principle "you can't prove a negative," yet you're accusing others of thinking irrationally? That's not a good look, yo. 
@SFC01
You do realize that you're giving a deductive argument (albeit an invalid one) hence defeating your own position? @[email protected]


----------



## SFC01

Mc Borg said:


> @*SFC01*
> You do realize that you're giving a deductive argument (albeit an invalid one) hence defeating your own position? @[email protected]


I didnt realise that Mc Borg, but then I`m not the sharpest crayon in the box !!


----------



## SFC01

Mc Borg said:


> But as I showed in that article that I posted in the other thread (which I don't think you read, considering you're giving the same argument). Absence of evidence for a proposition p does not give you justification for believing it's negation (not-p). You need to weigh the evidence for both sides. By this logic, the lack of evidence that someone that has been missing is alive would have us conclude that that person is dead, which is absurd. If we don't have evidence either way, we ought to suspend judgement (i.e. remain agnostic). And yes, believing that not-p is a belief - not a lack of belief.


Are you saying we should give the same weight to santa claus, fairys, vampires as some people do god? Surely its about what is sensible? None of us believe these example to exist because everything we know overwhelmingly suggests that they don't, and I don't see any difference when applied to god, do you ? If so, what sensible evidence points to this?

and this is where your example above about the missing person falls down as we know people go missing completely out of blue and then turn up alive later, so its sensible to suspend judgement on past experience. There has never been one bit of evidence for a god, and looking back in history, every god that mankind has ever invented has turned out to be false as we learn more about the universe, so we can say with almost certainty it isn't rational to believe in one now.

Whatever way you want people to structure their arguments against your posts doesn't change the above.


----------



## Tetragammon

@Mc Borg

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Definition of evidence
1
a : an outward sign : indication

in evidence
1
: to be seen : conspicuous <trim lawns &#8230; are everywhere in evidence - Amer. Guide Series: N.C.>

I think those are pretty straightforward, though I'd add on "verifiable" and "repeatable" to negate so-called "evidence" that only one person can experience. There has never been any verifiable, repeatable "conspicuous" "outward sign" of god(s). If you know otherwise I'd really love to see your source -- but be sure that they're verifiable and repeatable! Theists always resort to "feelings" in the end and as I already mentioned, feelings cannot be good indicators of truth.

I don't understand the need for philosophers to get into crazy stuff like "this could all be an illusion" or "we don't know if we exist." I agree with Rene Descartes: I think, therefore I am. Interaction with the PHYSICAL world around me is all the evidence I need to know that the physical "exists" -- until evidence to the contrary is provided. And a complete lack of evidence for anything beyond the physical is all I need to know that it does not exist -- at least until such evidence comes to light.

As to your analogy of a missing person: It is perfectly sensible to declare a missing person "dead" after a certain period of time during which they cannot be found. "God" has been physically and evidently absent for MILLENNIA. So how much longer must we wait before declaring him dead?? :roll

Concerning belief and the lack thereof, I keep telling you that you're wrong, but you're too smart for that, huh? *Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s).* That is not a "metaphysical position" -- it's a refusal to believe in the extraordinary until sufficient evidence is provided! I need no "belief" or "faith" for this position! Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

Finally, concerning "you can't prove a negative." I realize that this statement itself is a negative and thus, supposedly, unprovable. I see the contradiction. But the fact is that one cannot definitively prove, beyond all possible doubt, that something does NOT exist. Because there is always the infinitesimal possibility that it COULD exist somewhere out there. But where do we draw the line? At what point does the complete lack of evidence in something prove _beyond reasonable doubt_ that it does not exist? Where do we start using common sense as opposed to fantastic thinking? Your argument sounds like you'd believe in absolutely anything just because you cannot prove that it doesn't exist. And that's ridiculous.

The logical thing to do when faced with numerous outstanding possibilities is to suspend belief until further context, i.e. evidence, is provided. Thus, refusing to believe in any god(s) until we have more information. Which, in light of our long history, will never be provided.


----------



## Azazello

Tetragammon said:


> But the fact is that one cannot definitively prove, beyond all possible doubt, that something does NOT exist.


Whilst proving negative can be difficult, it is most certainly NOT impossible


----------



## Tetragammon

Azazello said:


> Whilst proving negative can be difficult, it is most certainly NOT impossible


I think it depends on context and scale. Can I prove that there's not a magical unicorn in my bathroom? Sure, I could go look. Can I prove that there are no magical unicorns anywhere in this universe, though? Well, I've never seen any evidence to suggest their existence. But I cannot fly to every planet and star and empty chunk of space to check. So they COULD exist somewhere. But to me the unlikelihood of their existence is enough to refuse to believe in them -- until someone provides better evidence.

It's exactly the same for God.


----------



## Azazello

Tetragammon said:


> I think it depends on context and scale.


Precisely. Hence my correction


----------



## SFC01

Tetragammon said:


> I think it depends on context and scale. Can I prove that there's not a magical unicorn in my bathroom? Sure, I could go look. Can I prove that there are no magical unicorns anywhere in this universe, though? Well, I've never seen any evidence to suggest their existence. But I cannot fly to every planet and star and empty chunk of space to check. So they COULD exist somewhere. But to me the unlikelihood of their existence is enough to refuse to believe in them -- until someone provides better evidence.
> 
> It's exactly the same for God.


and I have never seen one convincing argument or bit of evidence from religious people that there is any difference between the existence of magical unicorns or god. They fail to come up with anything time after time.


----------



## Azazello

SFC01 said:


> and I have never seen one convincing argument or bit of evidence from religious people that there is any difference between the existence of magical unicorns or god. They fail to come up with anything time after time.


The problem with your desire for convincing argument is that religion does not require it. All it demands is faith.


----------



## BeHereNow

Why are people created in a way that allows for such a large capacity for suffering?


----------



## ljubo

Azazello said:


> The problem with your desire for convincing argument is that religion does not require it. All it demands is faith.


quran has Scientific evidence


----------



## Tetragammon

Azazello said:


> The problem with your desire for convincing argument is that religion does not require it. All it demands is faith.


Precisely; that's why I fundamentally disagree with all religion. Faith is not "logical" at all -- it requires you to believe in things with no evidence. God is like a mysterious, invisible, possibly extra-dimensional unicorn in the bathroom, which cannot be discovered with any of the senses. What's the point in arguing the existence of something that we cannot experience via the senses? More to the point, why would you ever _worship_ such an entity??

According to believers you have to "feel" it. But Human emotions are extremely volatile and easily manipulated, thus, not good indicators of truth. Yet billions of people the world over trust their "feeling" that God exists.


----------



## Azazello

Tetragammon said:


> Faith is not "logical" at all


There is plenty of debate on this subject amongst the philosophers (see John Hick's _Faith and Knowledge_), so nothing is set in stone; which is probably why I would, again, advise against such sweeping generalisations.


----------



## Tetragammon

Azazello said:


> There is plenty of debate on this subject amongst the philosophers (see John Hick's _Faith and Knowledge_), so nothing is set in stone; which is probably why I would, again, advise against such sweeping generalisations.


Alright, then give me one good example of when faith is ever logical. For all my experience with religion I really cannot fathom how that could ever be a possibility. And I really don't have the time to read through that whole page right now, sorry. Hopefully I can get to it later.


----------



## Azazello

Tetragammon said:


> Alright, then give me one good example of when faith is ever logical. For all my experience with religion I really cannot fathom how that could ever be a possibility. And I really don't have the time to read through that whole page right now, sorry. Hopefully I can get to it later.


Your incredulity is not a good enough basis to dismiss philosophical arguments against logical positivism. You will note from reading about Hick's criticisms of the latter (if you ever get around to it) that it's not about examples of faith being logical it's about what we perceive as _logical _and why. Whether it is Hick, Wittgenstein, or any of the other logical positivism critics, the argument about faith, despite your suggestion, is far from settled.


----------



## Mc Borg

SFC01 said:


> Are you saying we should give the same weight to santa claus, fairys, vampires as some people do god? Surely its about what is sensible? None of us believe these example to exist because everything we know overwhelmingly suggests that they don't, and I don't see any difference when applied to god, do you ? If so, what sensible evidence points to this?


Yeah, the existence of God is totally ontologically on par with vampires and fairies, which is why throughout history every major thinker and philosopher had some opinion toward the proposition "God exists." Secondly, I don't know how you're getting that from what I said. I clearly stated that neither side has offered compelling evidence either way. So yes, when there is that level of ambiguity involved we ought to suspend judgement until such evidence does arise.

Another point is about things like vampire, fairies, santa, etc. is that we do have reason to believe that those don't exist; the same can't be said of the existence of some sort of supernatural/non-physical creator. So they're not even analogous.


----------



## Mc Borg

Tetragammon said:


> @Mc Borg
> I think those are pretty straightforward, though I'd add on "verifiable" and "repeatable" to negate so-called "evidence" that only one person can experience. There has never been any verifiable, repeatable "conspicuous" "outward sign" of god(s). If you know otherwise I'd really love to see your source -- but be sure that they're verifiable and repeatable! Theists always resort to "feelings" in the end and as I already mentioned, feelings cannot be good indicators of truth.


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/



Did you even read my post? I agree that there is no compelling evidence (either way). Where is your evidence that ultimately reality consists of natural properties and the phenomena contained therein? Unless you can provide that, you're belief in naturalism and/or physicalism is just as epistemically ungrounded as those religious beliefs that you think there is no evidence for. As I said multiple times, these positions are two sides of the same coin. Also, evidentialism is just one view of justification among many different views in epistemology - a view that has it's own problems (how do you justify _it_ evidentially?, etc.).



> I don't understand the need for philosophers to get into crazy stuff like "this could all be an illusion" or "we don't know if we exist." I agree with Rene Descartes: I think, therefore I am. Interaction with the PHYSICAL world around me is all the evidence I need to know that the physical "exists" -- until evidence to the contrary is provided. And a complete lack of evidence for anything beyond the physical is all I need to know that it does not exist -- at least until such evidence comes to light.


It's called caring about what beliefs are justified (if any). It's odd that you quote Descartes though, because his whole methodological skepticism goes entirely against what you're saying, lol. His argument was that reality could be an illusion (evil daemon) and the only thing that's certain is that you yourself exist...He also was a theist and concluded that God being benevolent creator wouldn't allow us to be deceived, etc:

*1.* God created me and gave me the natural compulsion to believe that my ideas of physical things are caused by physical things. 
*2.* If my ideas of physical things do not come from physical things, then God must be a deceiver (since he made me to believe in them). 
*3. *If God were a deceiver, then God would be imperfect. 
*4.* But God, by definition, is not imperfect.
*5.* Therefore, God is not a deceiver.
*6.* Therefore, my ideas of physical things do come from physical things (i.e. physical things exist).

Have you even read Descartes?

But back to your post:

So by your logic, someone hallucinating is justified in believing their hallucination to be real, just because it's what that's what their experience tells them? This is also a weird thing to say as you just got finished saying that "feelings" aren't good indicators of truth. Either way, from the fact that our experience shows us that there is a physical world (unless you're an idealist, generally theists also believe there is a physical world), it doesn't follow from that that you're therefore justified in believing that the totality of existence consists of the natural or physical. Physics itself isn't even complete. We don't know what interpretation of quantum mechanics is the correct one. We don't don't even know how big the physical universe is (we only know what we can observe), so wouldn't you say we'd be getting ahead of ourselves in concluding that all that exists is the physical? Again, you don't get to just say "There's no evidence for a non-physical being" therefore all things are likely to be physical just because.



> As to your analogy of a missing person: It is perfectly sensible to declare a missing person "dead" after a certain period of time during which they cannot be found. "God" has been physically and evidently absent for MILLENNIA. So how much longer must we wait before declaring him dead??


This assumes a very specific definition of God. Deists don't believe that God interacts with the world. So yes, a God that interacts in the in the way that you describe (e.g. physically manifesting in your bedroom every night) doesn't exist. But I don't think most traditional theists believe in that sort of God. Some theists have even made the argument that God is "hidden" for a reason (e.g. free will, etc).

In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. 
- Blaise Pascal

Even Schellenberg (atheist known for the argument from divine hiddenness - an argument that if I'm not mistaken - he believes logically shows that a personal God [i.e. tri-omni deity of traditional monotheism] doesn't exist) has said that ultimism (the view that divine reality of some sort exists) cannot be shown to not be the case. He believes that naturalism/physicalism cannot be justified - something that I very much agree with. Even if it were a true description of reality, you'd literally have to know everything (be omniscient ironically) about reality to conclude that. I have absolutely no idea how that, even in principle, could be achieved.

But you missed my point entirely. Unless there is compelling evidence one way or the other (I don't think there is) we ought to suspend judgement or at least hold to your beliefs tentatively. I'm not sure why everyone has to be so certain of everything. Is it fear that your view might be wrong? I have absolutely no problem admitting that any of my beliefs might be wrong. I'm a fallibilist; I hold them tentatively and am open to changing them if I'm ever convinced to do so.



> Concerning belief and the lack thereof, I keep telling you that you're wrong, but you're too smart for that, huh? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). That is not a "metaphysical position" -- it's a refusal to believe in the extraordinary until sufficient evidence is provided! I need no "belief" or "faith" for this position! Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?


I'm afraid you're the one who is wrong here. You are correct in that atheists "lack belief in God," but if they make statements like God doesn't exist or probably doesn't exist, they're making a statement of belief. Yes, if you don't have a belief either way (but I guess it could be argued that not believing either way is a belief that neither side compels you), but that's not what atheists do. I also never mentioned the word faith, so I'm not sure why you are.



> Finally, concerning "you can't prove a negative." I realize that this statement itself is a negative and thus, supposedly, unprovable. I see the contradiction. But the fact is that one cannot definitively prove, beyond all possible doubt, that something does NOT exist. Because there is always the infinitesimal possibility that it COULD exist somewhere out there. But where do we draw the line? At what point does the complete lack of evidence in something prove beyond reasonable doubt that it does not exist? Where do we start using common sense as opposed to fantastic thinking? Your argument sounds like you'd believe in absolutely anything just because you cannot prove that it doesn't exist. And that's ridiculous


What argument did I even make? lol. I was simply pointing out that you were using a logically contradictroy principle, yet you criticize others for being irrational and in need of being "taught" logic. But again, you're wrong. We prove that things don't exist all the time (I certainly don't have a million dollars in my bank account). And secondly, as I already showed, from that fact that there is no evidence for a proposition p, it don't therefore follow that it's negation (not-p) is therefore justified. You're going to have to give reasons as to how it's the case. I'm not sure why a self-professed evidentialist would have a problem with this. This is elementary epistemology; I taught you were this well read genius that put theists to shame with respect to logic and rationality? 

But to speak more about negative existential claims. They often can be restated as positive existential claims. "There are no supernatural beings" can be restated as "reality is wholly natural". This is actually kind of my point. Neither side has provided insurmountable proof either way. Your claim that "... the fact is that one cannot definitively prove, beyond all possible doubt, that something does NOT exist." is also self-defeating as it can be restated as "It is not the case that there are propositions in the form of "there exist no x" that can be proven beyond all possible doubt (even though this is false)." That statement itself can't be proven beyond all doubt by it's own principle, hence ought not be believed.


----------



## Mc Borg

Too long... again. :lol



> The logical thing to do when faced with numerous outstanding possibilities is to suspend belief until further context, i.e. evidence, is provided. Thus, refusing to believe in any god(s) until we have more information. Which, in light of our long history, will never be provided.


I agree with this. But your view that theists are incapable of thinking rationally carries the view that you are somehow in the know - you're not. The negation of theism also faces the same problems. As a pyrrhonian skeptic, suspension of judgement is the rational option when evidence for either side is ambiguous/non-conclusive. Considering that people have been debating the existence of God for millennia with not much progress, I think it's safe to say that it's truth value or lack thereof fits that description. The problem is that you're not actually suspending judgement; you believe that probably a God doesn't exist.


----------



## Tetragammon

@Mc Borg

Goddamn, you're stubborn! I get the feeling that you're just trolling me now. Of course I've read Descartes -- but it's been about 15 years and that one line is really all I remember of it because I found philosophy to be boring and pointless. So you're clearly more well-read than I am, or perhaps you have a better memory. Or you have a hell of a lot of time on your hands for Googling. Do you want a cookie? Like I said, I'm no philosopher and I'm no professor. I just think that it's obviously irrational to believe in extraordinary claims with zero evidence. And I cannot fathom how you can't see that. Different minds, I guess. To me, the ONLY difference between God and stuff like vampires and faeries is that the former has a lot more people fooled. Which is also mind-boggling to me.

Frankly, this argument isn't worth the effort because it's abundantly clear to me that you're just going to keep on pushing whatever weird form of agnosticism you adhere to anyway. I won't waste any more time with this. Plus we've hijacked this thread long enough. So let's agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## Mc Borg

k


----------



## 2Milk

If god is all powerful (omnipotent), can he create a being more powerful than him? If he can't what does that mean? If he can, what does that mean? Is he still "god?"


----------



## satanlita

Do you think God has direct control over answering our prayers, or intervening in our lives?


----------



## SFC01

Mc Borg said:


> Yeah, the existence of God is totally ontologically on par with vampires and fairies, which is why throughout history every major thinker and philosopher had some opinion toward the proposition "God exists." Secondly, I don't know how you're getting that from what I said. I clearly stated that neither side has offered compelling evidence either way. So yes, when there is that level of ambiguity involved we ought to suspend judgement until such evidence does arise.
> 
> Another point is about things like vampire, fairies, santa, etc. is that we do have reason to believe that those don't exist; *the same can't be said of the existence of some sort of supernatural/non-physical creator. So they're not even analogous*.


stop using your big words, i dont like googling every time - onco what? 

The bit I put in bold, why do we have reason to believe?

We *don't* have reason to believe in fairies etc and the same can be said about all supernatural forms. In the history of mankind and beyond we have never had reason to believe in the supernatural


----------



## Mc Borg

SFC01 said:


> stop using your big words, i dont like googling every time - onco what?
> 
> The bit I put in bold, why do we have reason to believe?
> 
> We *don't* have reason to believe in fairies etc and the same can be said about all supernatural forms. In the history of mankind and beyond we have never had reason to believe in the supernatural


If you're actually are interested in a serious answer you could re-read my post. I find it odd that you don't know the word ontological, considering one of the most famous arguments for theistic belief is the _ontological_ argument. If you can't even be bothered to study those arguments, I seriously doubt that you're actually interested in whether or not there are "reasons." Sure there are, but as I said, they're not compelling enough to sway everybody that looks at them. Some people find them convincing, others don't. Hence my whole point about it being ambiguous. It's not as cut and dry as you think it is. Almost every philosophical argument hinges on controversial premises/axioms. This is why I'm comfortable admitting that there isn't enough information. I'm not sure why people need to act like they know everything about everything. What's so hard about saying "You know what? Maybe that is true, maybe it's not." Dogmatic belief on all sides is what prevents us from making any progress.

And what argument do you have for naturalism/physicalism? Again, from the fact that there is no evidence for a position, it doesn't follow that you're justified in believing it's opposite. Imagine if someone made the argument that there is no evidence for physicalism, therefore they're justified in believing in God. Rightly you would see the fault in that argument. But guess what? You're doing exactly that. So again (I've asked this multiple times and nobody has giving me any evidence) where is you evidence? You're not applying skeptical principles consistently.


----------



## SFC01

you have lost me a bit here !!

Do you believe in a god from one of the main religions or just the possibility of a creator ? If its the former, which one is it, the christian god ? and if so what made you choose one over the other ?


----------



## Erroll

Azazello said:


> Your incredulity is not a good enough basis to dismiss philosophical arguments against logical positivism. You will note from reading about Hick's criticisms of the latter (if you ever get around to it) that it's not about examples of faith being logical it's about what we perceive as _logical _and why. Whether it is Hick, Wittgenstein, or any of the other logical positivism critics, the argument about faith, despite your suggestion, is far from settled.


I don't read philosophy, but I do enjoy logical positivism (looked it up). But underneath it all, I know that there is no logical positivism, because we do not experience things as they physically are, but we experience them as we have learned to experience them, to produce personally favorable results. We can't even say anything about the length of a coastline; how small do inlets have to be, to be measured around; it's a subjective call.

One's faith is one's personal reality.

If you believe it, it is real for you.

Reality is relative, just like time and space and truth and morality.

We conjure up our different versions of reality, based on our different experience sets.


----------



## Mc Borg

SFC01 said:


> you have lost me a bit here !!
> 
> Do you believe in a god from one of the main religions or just the possibility of a creator ? If its the former, which one is it, the christian god ? and if so what made you choose one over the other ?


Where did I say that I believe in God at all? I'm not sure why you're asking, but... I don't really have any set of beliefs about God anymore to be honest (my beliefs change all the time). I do lean toward theism of some sort, but that's about it. Lately I've been toying with some sort of weird pluralistic form of theism/deism (kind of funny that @Azazello mentioned John Hick :laugh: ), but those are more ideas of what God would look like if it were to exist than beliefs that I hold. I'd probably describe myself as agnostic that tentatively leans toward some sort of theism, these days.


----------



## Azazello

Erroll said:


> I don't read philosophy, but I do enjoy logical positivism (looked it up).


Logical positivism is a very interesting offshoot of epistemology. It was, in part, a natural response to the renewed interest in German Idealism during the time when scientific achievements made the gap between rationalism and empiricism more and more significant. Like many philosophical movements that sought to introduce universal rules, its principles quickly became untenable but it did offer a valuable insight into science meta-methodology, paving its way to philosophy of science.



Erroll said:


> But underneath it all, I know that there is no logical positivism, because we do not experience things as they physically are, but we experience them as we have learned to experience them, to produce personally favorable results. We can't even say anything about the length of a coastline; how small do inlets have to be, to be measured around; it's a subjective call.


Aside from the fact that logical positivism is an existing school of thought, so claiming its non-existence is illogical, there are a number of issues with this statement. First, you state that you '_know_' something whilst arguing for overall subjectivity of experience. Second, your argument for subjective interpretation of experience is pretty much the basis of logical positivism's approach to verificationism, which claims that statements made on the basis of those individual experiences are meaningless in as far as their truth value goes. Also, I would think that '_to produce personally favourable results_' overall reality, and not just your experience of it, has to have a degree of testable predictability (capable of producing unfavourable results) suggesting that your subjective reality is not as subjective as you would think.



Erroll said:


> One's faith is one's personal reality.
> 
> If you believe it, it is real for you.


However, that says nothing about the truth value of said subjective reality, specifically its moral truth, which faith often seeks to establish.



Erroll said:


> Reality is relative, just like time and space and truth and morality.
> 
> We conjure up our different versions of reality, based on our different experience sets.


Whilst, I suspect there is a great deal of difference between the relativity of, say, time as proposed by Einstein and what you mean by reality, I get your drift. I imagine it as Venn diagrams: a bunch of overlapping sets, where points outside of shared boundary represent our individual unique experiences of reality, whilst the shared section is just that - shared, common, reproducible, predictable, testable and often falsifiable experiences and perceptions. We might not be able to grasp the objective reality as such, but we can converge on some approximations of it by applying what seems to be the only tool capable of producing this result - the scientific method.

P.S. The Venn diagram analogy is very crude and the more I think of it the more I dislike it but if we are talking approximations it'll have to do for now.
P.P.S. I hope you are well. Always good to bump into you here.


----------



## Erroll

Azazello said:


> Logical .... Like many philosophical movements that sought to introduce universal rules, its principles quickly became untenable but it did offer a valuable insight into science meta-methodology, paving its way to philosophy of science. .


I wonder what sort of arguments made LP universal rules untenable? Anyway to say it simply? Did any of the arguments bring up consciousness and its effect on experienced reality? The thing that makes LP impossible, as I see it, is that consciousness builds experience based on signals coming in from the 5 or so senses, and memories. So observation is subjective. Now, you can have a bunch of subjective readings that agree, and you can call that objectivity, but you can not prove that it says anything about reality, which is untouched by observation.

We think that we understand the physical world, because we can concur on findings, but all that we are doing is agreeing on a totally artificial common Cartesian system by which we can compare our findings. It need have nothing to do with reality qua reality. Mathematics, Physics, and all human knowledge work this way. What we fail to realize is that when we look at a physical system, we ourselves, are part of the physical system which we observe, and that our consciousness gives us a picture which is in no way empirical. LP falls flat on its face in light of this.



Azazello said:


> Whilst, I suspect there is a great deal of difference between the relativity of, say, time as proposed by Einstein and what you mean by reality, I get your drift. I imagine it as Venn diagrams: a bunch of overlapping sets, where points outside of shared boundary represent our individual unique experiences of reality, whilst the shared section is just that - shared, common, reproducible, predictable, testable and often falsifiable experiences and perceptions. We might not be able to grasp the objective reality as such, but we can converge on some approximations of it by applying what seems to be the only tool capable of producing this result - the scientific method.


We can agree on our subjective assessments and call it empiricism, but is it really? To put it Mathematically, there can be many equations which yield the same result. So there can be an equation derived from collective observation which yields, say '4'. But there can also be many other equations which yield answer 4. The different equations which yield 4 are alternative explanations of what 4 means. 'Meaning' is a conscious animal. The explanations are subjectively derived out of consciousness. Just because we concur, in no way means we are right. Science determines what works within our limited scope, and makes-up a so-called 'physical' system which describes these results. Science is pragmatic, not empirical. It is not empirical until you describe the mechanism by which consciousness determines application and scope and interpretation of experienced reality.



Azazello said:


> P.P.S. I hope you are well. Always good to bump into you here.


It's always refreshing to read your intelligent and insightful posts. You must have great genes and a huge experience set


----------



## SFC01

@Azazello and @Erroll, can we get back to questions like "how often does god shave his beard?" etc ?


----------



## Erroll

SFC01 said:


> @Azazello and @Erroll, can we get back to questions like "how often does god shave his beard?" etc ?


LoL. I was just pointing out that we can not know reality. We can only know our interpretation of the data that our 5 senses send to our brain.

I said that because the conversation had turned toward proof that god does/doesn't exist.

I'm saying that there is no proof that anything is really as we perceive it to be.

In short. We don't know nuthin. We only think we know something


----------



## YogiJ

Religion has evolved out of necessity, it comforts the human being and gives a sense of purpose and meaning which is a fundamental requirement for happiness and longevity. Religion is rooted in spiritual values, which over time fade away and become dogmatic rites and rituals. The most important aspect of religion is love. Which is why Buddhism is the most pure religion as it's emphasis is on cultivating the seeds of love. But other religions that focus on God as the supreme controller of events can also be pure if their emphasis is on serving God with love and devotion, as is the case in the Krishna Consciousness movement. Ultimately, we are all one consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively, we are eternal beings, non-physical, beyond space and time.


----------



## Azazello

Erroll said:


> I wonder what sort of arguments made LP universal rules untenable?


I found this summary:

"_Logical positivism is criticized for being self-refuting. Positivism asserts that any statement that cannot be empirically tested is meaningless. However, logical positivism is a philosophy, and cannot be empirically tested itself. By its own criterion, therefore, logical positivism is meaningless. This problem is by no means restricted to positivism, but more of an issue with sweeping, universal statements in general. No philosophy can explain "everything," or if it tries to, it will fail to be internally consistent. This is comparable to the mathematical concept of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Additionally, the criterion of verifiability was attacked as being overly restrictive, and posing a serious problem especially when applied to negative statements. Most notably, Karl Popper's proposition of falsifiability as a central characteristic of scientific statements was a direct reaction to ameliorate this issue_." *



Erroll said:


> Did any of the arguments bring up consciousness and its effect on experienced reality?


Nope. It largely deals with the question of verifiability of statements and their truth value. One doesn't have to directly involve consciousness to discuss subjectivity.



Erroll said:


> LoL. I was just pointing out that we can not know reality. We can only know our interpretation of the data that our 5 senses send to our brain.


Before we get (quite rightly) chided by SFC01 again, I'd like to say that the subjectivist philosophy of Descartes, Kant, and Fichte amongst others - to whom above opinion could be attributed - is just as much of an extreme oversimplification as that of LP. l consider both interesting relics of philosophy and don't subscribe to either.



Erroll said:


> It's always refreshing to read your intelligent and insightful posts. You must have great genes and a huge experience set


You are too nice, Erroll  As for my huge set... well, I prefer to interpret it euphemistically and bashfully concur


----------



## Estillum

What's you're favourite song off David Bowie's "Hunky Dory" album?


----------



## WillYouStopDave

Why are Christians obsessed with converting other people who have told them as plainly as they can that they're not interested and want nothing to do with their religion? How do you expect to coexist with people who don't have the same beliefs as you do if you won't leave them alone about it?

Yes, I know atheists can at times be overbearing exactly like that but everyone I have ever known who was religious would eventually start in on me about religion without me ever expressing any desire to talk about it. And if I told them I didn't want to hear it, they'd invariably get mad at me or just ignore the fact that I said I didn't want to debate about it and keep on until they got a reaction. Why do religious people do that if they really want to live harmoniously with everyone?


----------



## sad1231234

YogiJ said:


> Consciousness is immaterial and is even beyond the quantum level. There are many scientists beginning to realize that consciousness is the unified field. Meaning that all of us are interconnected and are ultimately one source, one essence, one everything. There is only the illusion of being a separate individual but in reality are all God's energy.


You are stating your assumption as fact when it is merely your belief. Your statement contradicts the very laws of quantum physics itself. Because as far as modern scientific knowledge is aware of, we have no evidence whatsoever of any form of conscious entity existing within a matrix of consciousness that exists beyond the quantum level. The very closest bit of "evidence" we have that supports your belief is our knowledge of quantum entanglement, which at the very best seems to merely indicate that subatomic particles interact with each other telepathically.


----------



## Kandice

How do you feel about God in respect to the universe? I ask because we learn about God and Her/His impact or presence on earth, so with what we know about the universe and in more recent news the planets that were discovered that were able to sustain life, does this impact your beliefs? Explain why or why not?

Also, what is your opinion regarding the idea that we are all made from stardusts?



I hope my questions don't come across as me trying to argue with you. I have learned a little bit about astronomy and my faith in Christianity did shake a little. It made me realize, everything we have on earth, including religion is so small compared to the universe. Regardless, I am content with the unknowns regarding religion and the universe.


----------



## slyfox

Would you purchase religious items(crosses, nativity scenes, etc) from a craftsman who wasn't Christian? 

Now that I think of it, this must happen a lot with items mass produced in other countries like China. Despite this, I get the impression that some Christians might get upset or feel deceived if an individual was to do it on a more homemade/smaller scale.
.


----------



## Twilightforce

Why do your people always want to brain wash us?


----------



## Blag

StJudeThaddeus said:


> I'm well versed in theology and thought it would be fun. Ask me about the bible, god... anything. References to flying spaghetti monsters are fine and won't offend me. oke:lol


I have a few questions:

My dad said that the whole basis of jesus in christianity and as extension of christianity is based on his revival/resurrection and ascension to heaven after a few days of his crucifixion. What say you about this?

Another question is that the existence of buddha and mahavir is more well established by first hand reports than the (mostly second and third hand) reports on jesus and his teachings. Whats up with that? Was it all a ploy to overthrow the very modern roman government?

What are the bible's/religion's comments on epistemology? (Epistemology is the study of knowledge, whats regarded as correct and what as wrong, and the nature of said knowledge) This is important because this will help christianity align itself with modern science.


----------



## SFC01

Blag said:


> This is important because this will help christianity align itself with modern science.


Surely this is impossible when the main part of christianity is based on nothing but a man made story. Its as far from science as you could get.


----------



## Blag

SFC01 said:


> Surely this is impossible when the main part of christianity is based on nothing but a man made story. Its as far from science as you could get.


I wanted an answer/defense from a christian, after all thats what the thread's about. What you said is a popular non-christian/athiest's perspective.


----------



## Broski

Excuse me if this question has been asked already, I was reading through the first couple of pages and thought I was nearing the end - but just realized there's 9 pages of this. So, if it's been answered, sorry!

@OP:
What do you think about some of the "unnecessary suffering" that goes on around the world that's caused by genetics? e.g. congenital diseases, mental disorders (clinical depression, psychopathy, schizophrenia) and others that quite literally force some people to be predisposed to bad behaviors, and others not?


----------



## WillYouStopDave

What causes intelligent people to get obsessed with religious BS? I don't get it. I really don't. And it's the kind of thing where ordinarily I would just say "whatever you ant to believe". But it doesn't end there. It never ends there.


----------



## Maslow

Why is god such a %$#@!n' prick?


----------



## ManInAShed

Maslow said:


> Why is god such a %$#@!n' prick?


Is He? Why so? I admit, the God of the Old Testament can be wrathful, afterall He is a "God who feels indignation every day." (Psalm 7:11). God hates sin, He hates that we rebel against and He hates to see His people mistreated, He is a very merciful God and He wants us to be with Him, but this doesn't stop Him from unleashing His wrath. God won't allow His people to perish, he just despises wickedness "For the LORD is righteous, He loves righteousness; The upright will behold His face (Psalm 11:7).


----------



## SFC01

Broski said:


> @OP:
> What do you think about some of the "unnecessary suffering" that goes on around the world that's caused by genetics? e.g. congenital diseases, mental disorders (clinical depression, psychopathy, schizophrenia) and others that quite literally force some people to be predisposed to bad behaviors, and others not?


Strange eh, for example when someone is saved miracously, God did it, and answered prayers. When bad **** happens, they give it all this "God doesn't intervene" crap and us humans get the blame for it.

along with this and other **** like God exists in a "plane" and not subject to scientific rules etc, then its not really worth the argument.


----------



## ManInAShed

WillYouStopDave said:


> What causes intelligent people to get obsessed with religious BS? I don't get it. I really don't. And it's the kind of thing where ordinarily I would just say "whatever you ant to believe". But it doesn't end there. It never ends there.


 I'll try and make this as candid and short as possible. Honestly, I'm only of average intelligence (109 IQ) so I'm not going to have a scientists or physicists understanding of the world. I've also lived a pretty hard and sad life, having been a drug addict while suffering from major depression and anxiety. You could point to these things and say that's why I choose to delude myself with fairytales and use religion as a crutch. I'm obsessed with religion because I'm obsessed with Him, I love Him, He is all I have and I am nothing without Him. It seriously makes me tremble to think of my existence without Him. I also face doubt a lot, many Christians and religious people do, I don't think it's blind faith at all, it takes a lot to believe.

In my drug taking days I took a lot of LSD. I'd take LSD and meditate for hours, often thinking I was reaching a 'Bodhi' state of mind and going into states of 'Samadhi'. Psychedelics are amazing, they can show you and teach you a lot, you just need to be responsible and safe with them. Again, some may say I'm just piling delusions onto delusions. I was a radical atheist growing up until I took LSD. Look at George Harrison and Ram Dass and their conversions, these drugs show you something that is unspeakable, it's like entering another world where everything you once thought is questioned.

A year ago I began taking so much LSD that I entered a psychotic state. I was in a psychosis for weeks, it was so bad some of the doctors thought I'd never come back to reality (some may say I haven't:laugh. I heard constant voices during that time, voices that tormented me and told me all sorts of things, I also saw many things, terrifying. During the psychosis I had experience where I was able to see what holiness really meant, it was as if I was seeing through the eyes of Jesus, walking His footsteps, speaking His words. It was to experientially know what holiness is, and again its unspeakable, I can see why many call Him G-d, there's no words. That was what completely changed me for good. I was lead to Him, it was like a clarity I never had before. Suddenly the Bible which I used to mock took on new meaning, I could see the spiritual truth within. It became a living word. And now I can see Him working in my life, even my family can see the difference in me, I'm not the same person, I've been given a second chance with life and I've been born anew.

If you want to call me mentally ill or delusional that's fine. I've experienced so much in life and I've come to terms with it all. I'm ok with where I am in life now and I like who I am and my beliefs. If me and my church are all delusional fanatics so be it, I'm finally happy.


----------



## SFC01

@ManInAShed, I wont call you mentally ill or delusional 

but finding God on LSD/In a state of psychosis is probably not something you should base a belief or a way of life on is it ?

I do agree though, LSD is pretty damn good - a right laugh !!


----------



## ManInAShed

SFC01 said:


> @*ManInAShed* , I wont call you mentally ill or delusional
> 
> but finding God on LSD/In a state of psychosis is probably not something you should base a belief or a way of life on is it ?
> 
> I do agree though, LSD is pretty damn good - a right laugh !!


 Thanks and I know exactly what you're saying, but even before my psychosis for a couple of years beforehand I was being lead in a direction towards the divine, admittedly LSD was the catalyst though. This is the problem, it's just an innate feeling that I find is confirmed by religious texts, the experience came first then the religious texts. The psychiatrist R.D. Laing did much work on schizophrenia and psychosis and he believed, that if handled correctly, psychosis can be a transformative and beneficial experience. I was always an atheist, I'd argue with anyone who believed in God because I thought it was silly (even with my SA), I wasn't looking for God, but I can't deny my experiences. That's why I mentioned George Harrison and Ram Dass, they're the most prominent ones I can think of who found God through LSD. I'm actually interested in people who take psychedelics and don't have spiritual experiences, man if only I could just have taken it and hung out at the movies or played playstation, that was my goal when I first tried it, never knew I'd enter into pandora's box where all my existence would be questioned.


----------



## SFC01

@ManInAShed, took quite a bit LSD and shrooms during my 20's and I`ve never had or known anyone who had a spiritual experience. Obviously loads of funny moments till it hurt, strange moments and unsettling ones too but nothing spiritual although I can see how it could lead that way in the right setting with the right mindset.

We used to take it everywhere for a while, pubs, clubs, parties, round the mates, at home alone and I was always able to leave the experience where it was, as drug induced without any meaning.


----------



## Kevin001

What is your interpretation of the side way cross necklaces?


----------



## Midnight Fool

Why is this even in the atheist section? Seems like an excuse to post scripture at the unbelievers.


----------



## sad1231234

For any Christian:


How can the theory of God/afterlife make sense when God is all powerful and infinite, yet he has a 3d afterlife prepared for us? You would think that since God literally has no limits, he could create an after life with not only length width height, but even more dimensions of space. I mean, we really arent gonna spend the rest of eternity walking around looking at 3d stuff are we, when God can literally create an even higher(in terms of dimensions of space) plane of existence? But if God does have a higher plane of existence prepared for us, then that contradicts Genesis where God "created man in his own image". So either the all-powerful God has a highly limited(relative to God's power, e.g. to create 100 dimensions of space which would therefore be an exponentially more important/powerful/pleasurable existence) three dimensional existence for us to spend the rest of eternity in, or the Bible has contradicted itself.


----------



## naes

How do you believe in God and evolution at the same time? It pretty much refutes the Bible.


----------



## Club Tropicana

When you have a split brain patient who has had the wall of nerves connecting the left brain to the right brain cut and they become two different people, one an atheist and one a Christian for example does one of the two people in the skull go to heaven and the other to hell as they don't believe? If they both go to heaven do you think they remain two different people still or does it morph back into the original person before the brain surgery/trauma? 

Why when somebody suffers damage to their brain does it often correspond to changes in personality and behaviour? Isn't all of these qualities based on if you're a good soul or not? If everything we know about what makes us us lies within our brains and at death our brains die then is it likely that we somehow float off our brains unharmed, dementia free and happy?

I'll let your 100 billion neurons (or soul?) Come up with an answer, much appreciated.


----------



## wmu'14

Gaaaaaah. Too many questions!!1

The amount of question is too dang high!


----------



## cinto

This doesn't apply to everyone, but where did the having to fancy up and look good to go to church come from? Should we be able to show up with what we'd like, that is appropriate of course. My mom will throw a fit if I were to go in a dress and sneakers. She's says you have to be presentable for God. lol


----------

