"If my faith brings me comfort and peace and hope then what harm is it causing me?"
-
Nothing except for damning yourself to eternal ignorance.

It was just a matter of time before the believer(s) here fell into the trap of attempting to defend belief and scripture by way of actually addressing a verse from scripture.

Scripture is the written underpinning of belief. What happened here mirrors the untenability and danger of scripture: The defender(s) dissemble and instinctually fall into a primal, tribalistic lashing-out toward anyone who thinks outside the claustrophobic toxicity of a malignant mentality.

http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2009/jan...

ROTFLMAO and touche' Gazettefan! I agree with SuperDave, except for the part about being your nemesis.

On that note... thanks everyone! This has been a most interesting and enjoyable discussion. I have learned a lot.

(My bisected RCATDC membership card is in the mail, Gfan.)

Gfan: That was the absolute most funniest post I have EVER read on this forum. Congrats - you WIN!! At least in the humour category!! I hesitate to write this, as I suppose there are those among us who might consider your post to be a sincere rebuke of your nememis.. which maybe it is. Who am I to differ? To quote Mark Twain and/or Bill Shakespeare, I...uh.., oh nevermind.

foolonthehill, tomorrow, in my capacity as the Grand Poobah of the tri-township chapter of the Rock County Atheists Tool and Die Consortium, I will petition for your summary removal from said chapter.

Here are the charges:

--suspicion of being a crypto-believer

--suspicion of being a repressed believer

--improper use of similes, hypotheticals, and analogies

--failure to respond to issue(s) at hand

--flummery

--fauderall

--self-indulgent balderdash

--reefer inspired flights of fancy e.g. the belief that Paul McCartney is a great lyricist when everyone knows that all he ever does is write silly love songs.

--unforgivable ignorance of scripture including the Old and New Testaments, the Koran, and the Book of Mormons

--failure to acknowledge that being anti-abortion, anti-Theory of Evolution, and anti-stem cell research are on the continuum of the barbarism of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and witch burning

--failure to realize the difference between being inspired to do crazy things by watching movies and being inspired to do crazy things because scripture and god are ordering you to under the threat of burning eternally in hell for non-compliance

--wanton besmirchment of Trekies

--having the poor judgment to believe that theists will be unhappy with your posts

--believing that kamikazes took part in the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor

You are ordered to cut your membership card in half and mail it to the tri-township chapter of the Rock County Atheists Tool and Die Consortium. You are also ordered to not speak to atheists, even when spoken to. And you are ordered to memorize by rote all billnewbie's posts on GazettXtra (no exceptions).

You will be mailed instructions for appealing this decision. Good luck.

Foolonthehill: I am not going to chastise you, I knew the point you were trying to make awhile back and it is much appreciated. If my faith brings me comfort and peace and hope then what harm is it causing me? Even if at the end GF is right and I am wrong I will at least have lived my short time in this world full of evil and bad happenings without being hopeless that some day it will end and we will all get along. I don't think I could bear to be hopeless in this world. We all have hope and faith in something or someone. I have faith in God but I also have faith in my family and friends and most of my fellow human beings. I try to find the best in everyone and hope for the best and sometimes people disappoint me (and others) because I was naive enough to believe in them only to find I had been fooled or tricked or whatever...

"And, a largely looked-over fact is that less than six months after the attack the majority of canadians said that we had 9/11 coming." --Gazettefan

Perspective. A man stands in the middle of the center isle in a theater holding a large card over his head. The side of the card facing the left half of the theater is black and the opposite side of the card is white. He asks the packed theater audience to yell out the color of the card on his count. In unison, everyone seated in the left half of the theater yells "black" and everyone seated in the right half of the theater yells "white".

(...continued)
My own answer to my question is, "Of course I immerse myself in movies." (I presume you would answer similarly, GF.) We can fully experience that illusory experience without abrogating our rational minds. We can even gain spiritual and intellectual inspiration from the experience. Some movies have even inspired widespread social and scientific advancements.

(I'll anticipate your counter-arguments, GFan.) Yes, but nobody forces their beliefs on the rest of the world or flies planes into buildings because of some movie. Oh, really? Movies have been blamed for all sort of evils, including rape and serial murder. The "movie made me do it" has even been used as a defense in court. Yes, but no one gets so immersed in the illusion or fictional story of a movie to the extent that they model their lives around it. Heh... what about "Trekies"?

What I find most noteworthy is how no one ever calls someone else an idiot for seeking comfort or inspiration in something we all agree is merely an illusion. Even when we condemn those who take the movie experience "too far" we never condemn, by association, those who don't take it too far, as do some who blame followers of a particular religion for the evil deeds of its long-dead followers.

(I suppose theists will now chastise me for equating God to a movie. That isn't my point. I mean only to point out how we all, under certain circumstances, can be totally accepting of someone else finding inspiration and comfort in something that we ourselves KNOW is only an illusion.)

"Given the oddness of your "movie" question, you'll first have to tell me why you are asking it. (You'll have to tell me why you're asking it even though I already know -that's OK, isn't it?) And you'll also have to provide an answer to your own question." --Gazettefan.

Touche'! You have deduced that my questions to you are transparent attempts to manipulate you into some corner. I knew you were way too smart for that tactic to work too much longer. On the other hand, when one has the courage of one's convictions, one needn't ever fear giving a simple, straightforward, honest answer to any simple, isolated question. (But that's just my opinion.)

My "odd" movie question has to do with illusion versus reality. First, how this relates to my "fool_on_the_hill" handle. "The fool on the hill sees the sun going down but the eyes in his head see the world spinning 'round." --Paul McCartney. Perhaps the most profound lyric line of any song ever written. Of course, I don't personally perceive reality (the world spinning round), I only aspire to achieve that perspective of reality. Like most everyone else, I perceive the sun traveling around our steady Earth, while knowing intellectually it is merely an illusion. I find it a bit disconcerting and dizzying to perceive the Earth as a rotating sphere in space. I find the rock-steady Earth a much more comforting concept, so prefer to believe the illusion. Since I'm not an astrophysicist or NASA employee, there is no practical consequence to my intellectually KNOWING reality while simultaneously choosing to BELIEVE the totally contradictory illusion. Behaving this way doesn't mean I am delusional or an idiot. (continued...)

A tie?!!! How much did billnewbie pay you to say that?!!!

billnewbie: your last post appeared to try to mock gazettefan. What's the point? Neither of you will "win" this debate. Let's call it a tie.

I see Gazettefan is learning to copy and paste. Glad I could show him a thing or two. I hope he's not too annoyed with me. "Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" -Mark Twain
.
Perhaps this newfound skill in time may become habitual, “How use doth breed a habit in a man" -William Shakespeare
.
As for his assessment of my comments I quote the Bard yet once more "I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

billnewbie, lose the Shakespeare, it's not working for you!

And try not to use the effort to maneuver you back into the debate as an excuse for another goofy ego-trip.

"One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed the world is flat."

--- Mark Twain

foolonthehill, yes, your question would only apply if you were comparing christianity with islam. And even if McVeigh was an atheist, how can it be determined that his atheism had anything to do with what he did? If we had to determine the precedent for what he did, we'd end up asking ourselves: Who historically and institutionally behaves the way he did? Which was to irrationally determine that certain people were his enemies and to irrationally determine how to deal with those enemies -woman and children alike. We would then be looking at judeo-christian-islamism.

By the way, there were no kamikazes at Pearl Harbor. Kamikazes weren't used until near the end of the war when Japan was very desperate. Importantly, kamikaze pilots were "spiritually" inspired by Buddhist and Shinto priests.

And you apparently don't know anything about islam and the koran. This "they highjacked a religion-thing" is a bunch of crap. Islam was only peaceful for about its first thirteen years. After that it became very violent. Verses were officially added to the koran that superceded more peaceful earlier verses. The nuts that crashed the planes on 9/11 were acting according to scripture.

And, a largely looked-over fact is that less than six months after the attack the majority of canadians said that we had 9/11 coming.

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

Given the oddness of your "movie" question, you'll first have to tell me why you are asking it. (You'll have to tell me why you're asking it even though I already know -that's OK, isn't it?) And you'll also have to provide an answer to your own question.

This is a great discussion (the parts of it I've read anyway). Both sides have made some valid points. And I'm sure most everyone realizes that it's unlikely that a single person will be swayed from their opinion based on what is said here. Those that believe, ultimately do so based on faith. Even the bible acknowledges this. Those that do not believe, do so based on logic. Asking an atheist to believe in God is akin to asking him or her to believe in the Great Pumpkin. Similarly, trying to convince a believer to give up their belief system is like asking him or her to give up breathing. This is an argument that cannot be won. The believer says "you just have to believe" and the atheist says "you can't possibly believe that". Well, I propose a truce! Would everyone please just respect everyone else's sincerely held beliefs? As Rodney King once famously said, "Can't we all just get along"? Peace.

I am very happy to be included on the list of people Gazettefan denigrates for not coming to the same conclusions he has.
.
“Too thine own self be true”, Gazettefan (such a wealth of Shakespearean clichés exist). Saying there is proof of evolution and therefore no God is one thing, providing proof is something else. You are insistent in the former but sorely lacking in the latter. You substitute denigration for God, His followers and even your like minded peers who challenge you, for that proof that seems to escape your posts. You ask disingenuous questions as if you have any real interest in the answers, the proof of which is that when you get an answer you simply ridicule it or ignore it and ask yet another.
.
You claim that there is no God? You spend so much time complaining about Him that your claim cannot be taken seriously. Again I wonder, who are you trying to convince? You seem to me to be a soul in torment. I advise you to reconsider your opinions. Time for more Shakespeare! (There are more things in heaven and earth, Gazettefan, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” (Yes I know, I’ve used this quote before but it was irresistible)

"And do you really need this explanation? I guess you do. It is your IDEA of a "sovereign god" and your IDEA of a "god" that I criticize. I don't criticize those things as though they're real!!!" -- Gazettefan

I'm curious, Gfan. When you watch a movie, do you immerse yourself in the experience or do you constantly remind yourself that you are merely watching actors filmed on a set and not something "real"? (Don't infer anything beyond what I have explicitly stated there.)

Thank you for answering my question, Gfan. I now have a clearer understanding of your position.

My question fails as an analogy because I intended it a hypothetical question, not an analogy. Had I wanted to present an analogy, I would have built something around the Pearl Harbor Kamikazes or atheist American terrorist Timothy McVeigh. Doing so would have been a whole lot of wasted effort, for I am confident you'd have dismissed any such analogy as invalid, regardless of how I had constructed it. I could have implied something entirely different if I had used "blond hair and blue eyes" instead of "atheist" in my hypothetical. I only wanted to see if you would get defensive and attack my premise. By the way, my answer in either case is, "No, it wouldn't."

Of course you and I both know that atheism isn't a club or a tribe. That's a silly proposition but, based on generalizations in some of the comments posted here, I doubt that everyone feels this way. I'm just trying to clear up any misconceptions in that regard. I can look at a Christian and say, there but for the geographical location of their birth goes a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. It says absolutely nothing about their character as an individual. A survey of Middle Eastern Muslims showed that roughly 93% percent of them condemn the 9/11 attack, stating Islamic religion as the basis for their position. The 7% who cheered the attack expressed political reasons for their support. Upon closer examination, associating religiosity with evil can be nothing more than a red herring. The 9/11 terrorists were simply evil.

That's it, billnewbie, take it as a complement. When I quote you it's not because your statements are self-condemning. ;~)

By the way, how did you know about the quotes on the stories you didn't post on? Do you monitor all my posts on that one page?

And you might want to lose the Shakespeare -it's not working for you -ask Mark Twain.

Anyone who teaches children that the theory of evolution is false is being abusive. Evolution has been proven. Do something about the stunted ability to learn!

And do you really need this explanation? I guess you do. It is your IDEA of a "sovereign god" and your IDEA of a "god" that I criticize. I don't criticize those things as though they're real!!!

To take my criticism as a compliment is proof that to be deluded goes hand in hand with being self-deluded.

DrTalk, see my post below.

foolonthehill, for them to abandon their religion would be a good thing. And just because that isn't entirely likely, it is still good to preach to that effect.

Your attempt to analogized this problem is faulty. If atheism had a violent history that lasted thousands of years and had a written (and still worshiped) basis for that history, your comparison would some water.

Judeo-christian-islamic's scripture and history makes everyone who participates in that milieu suspect. I would give the Jews a pass given that in recent history they have not been unjustifiably aggressive towards others. They've been busy staving off the attempts by christians and muslims to annihilate them.

Meanwhile christians are slaughtering christians and muslims are slaughtering muslims and christians and muslims are slaughtering each other.

Your attempt at an analogy has failed.

I suppose I should feel gratified that I have ingrained my “spiel” into Gazettefan’s consciousness so deeply that he felt compelled to condemn it on 5 different comment boards, one of which I haven’t written a comment since Feb. 9 and 2 of which I never commented on at all! That brings to mind a Shakespearean quote…… Nah, methinks I quoteth that one too much.
.
Did anyone else notice that this Gazettefan quote, to name just one, is nothing but conjecture masquerading as fact, “the evolution of one species into another (phylogeny) has been observed by way of extrapolating the meaning of fossil evidence”? I guess that if Gazettefan and evolutionists says so, we are all just suppose to accept it as fact, kind of like his contention that God has no sovereignty while reviling God for acting sovereign.
.
The more strident the tone of Gazettefan’s posts get, the more encouraged I am that I have made some salient points particularly when he quotes me so profusely.

gf: "Nice dodge of the institutionalized murder of people by a club of which you are undoubtedly a member."
.
First, I wasn't trying to dodge your question. I just couldn't answer it. Second, you're generalizing. Just because some Christians have committed murder doesn't mean they all do. I don't accuse all atheists of murder just because some atheists have.

Gfan --You would condemn it. Shall I presume you would not then guilt any other atheists by association?

What I am attempting to understand is (what appears to be) an "original sin" type of burden you place on any theist for the past sins of any other theist. I seriously doubt that you feel that way but what I don't understand is, specifically, what are you imploring them to do? Abandon their religion? Openly acknowledge and denounce all bad acts of any/all religions? Maybe you have answered this question long ago but the answer isn't self-evident in current discussions.

foolonthehill, here's your question:

"Let me ask this, GF: Would you any feel differently about any aspect of the 9/11 events if the terrorists had been atheists? (For a number of reasons, please don't say that no atheist would ever do such thing.)"

Yes, if they were atheists then I wouldn't think members of the judeo-christian-islamic crew did it. But they did.

What's important, though, is what atheistic ideologues are you worried about or do you conceivably believe would do such a thing.

I've already stated that the psycho-dynamic of communism and fascism is religiosity: A previously traditional religiosity is tapped into by all-powerful unelected leaders -godlike characters e.g. Russia, North Vietnam, and North Korea. These countries were or are officially atheistic but they don't exercise their power based on atheism. Their people were/are still religious.

When you anticipate another attack on the U.S., who do expect will do it?

In summary, atheism has no historical or written credo for violently attacking outsiders and "infidels." If such an atheistic group with those foundations and those practices were to arise, I would condemn it.

Please respond.

Gfan: My atheist 9/11 question on Mar 16, 2009 at 12:24 (I don't feel entitled to an answer. Many of my questions and posits here have been ignored.)

Incidentally, I thoroughly enjoyed how you proved my point by critiquing my assertion of that point. :-)

DrTalk, christian Catholic, it's all the same to me. Nice dodge of the institutionalized murder of people by a club of which you are undoubtedly a member.

foolonthehill, your first paragraph collapses under its own weight. What questions are you talking about? And if I missed some because I can't catch up after being offline for a while, tell me what those questions are.

And I've started to give my opinions of his questions because they are repetitive and have already been answered.

If he needs to observe one animal turning into another animal, he is only exhibiting how his theology and religiosity has stunted his ability to acquire true knowledge. It's no accident that the scripture's crazy idea about the passage of time leaves him incapable of grasping the time spans of evolution.

gazettfan,
I'm not Catholic, I really can't answer your questions about why Galileo was excommunicated and why Hilter was not.
.
As far as your concern about Christians burning witches at the stake, I can't answer that any more that you could answer questions about why some atheists commit murder, etc.. and why some atheists don't.

GFan --My comment regards your apparent tendency to dismiss tough questions as invalid instead of simply answering them. You repeatedly deny these accusations but I'm afraid the census is against you on this particular point. I have no idea which particular question DrTalk was referring to, I am only speaking in general. (BTW, I patiently await your answer to my "atheist 9/11" question, below.)

"gazettefan,
Quit giving me your opinions of my questions and start answering them." --Dr.Talk

LOL No plans for that but sometimes I am tempted to have another revolution and put regular people in our government that know what it is like to live on a budget and how it feels to have to readjust that budget to deal with job loss, higher prices, etc... People that have lots of money don't seem to grasp that concept!! :)

foolonthehill, what point re: DrTalk? Whatever it was, if it was in the form of a question, I probably already answered it.

Now watch and see if he answers my questions below!!!

ncpanfan, I'm happy for you. Just don't participate in any new Inquisitions or anything like that.

And, DrTalk, let's not forget that for 1500 years christians tortured and murdered women for being "witches" -most of which took place in Europe. It took American democracy to dissipate the scourge of religion and put a stop to that particular way of persecuting woman.

And why did the church torture Galileo for saying Jupiter's moons orbited Jupiter and not the Earth? And why did the church take until 1992 to apologized for that atrocity by unexcommunicating him?

And why didn't the church excommunicate Hitler?

GF --I really do hate being cast as the atheist ganging up on the OTHER atheist, but DrTalk does have a point. This is why all of my recent questions posed to you come with qualifiers and conditionals. Sorry...

Gfan: Oops I almost forgot , hey I am intelligent and courageous :) I may not be the smartest banana in the bunch but I was on the high honor roll way back in high school and do seem to have some brains even now that I am getting older. LOL And I have lived through a very dysfunctional childhood and instead of repeating the process made my life better and popped out 2 kids (trust me childbirth is very painful!) who have had a happy NORMAL childhood and have grown into 2 young adults that I am very proud of. (So I think that covers the courageous)

DrTalk --I've never claimed that brilliant scientists can't also be believers. Way back then, it seems rather strange to think otherwise.

In any event, I'm not dumb enough to debate religious history with you. You will concede, though, that religion has inflicted what we now consider to be brutal pain and suffering on those it considered to be heretics, correct?
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/astr263l/S...

gfan: Phew!! Thank you. Glad to know that. :) I don't think a believer has a right to say a non-believer has no morals either. Believers are not supposed to judge. I know in my heart that there are all kinds of people out there who do good things and try to live by the golden rule and I know they are not all believers.

Unfortunately I also know the world is full of people who do bad things and don't care. :(

Fool: :) Thank you for being one of the good ones!

gazettefan,
Quit giving me your opinions of my questions and start answering them.

ncpanfan --Ditto! (Except from the atheist's perspective.)

foth: "Hey, let's not leave out the centuries-long battle of Ptolemy, Copernicus, et al. vs the Catholic Church."
.
Yes, the church was wrong, but they were simply following what the academics at the time were saying (which is what the Catholic church usually does). They would search the Scriptures to justify the Greek pagan belief that the Earth was stationary with the sun in motion around it.
.
Copernicus considered it his "loving duty to seek the truth in all things, in so far as God has granted that to human reason." It was a Christian scientist like Copernicus that helped start modern astronomy.

DrTalk, stop with the childish tactic of repeatedly asking me the same questions (which I've already answered) and then responding with thoughtless nitpickery. You're going to tick-off MDC....

ncpanfan, just the last two. Don't worry, I think you're human. And, I was addressing the believer's claim that non-believers lack morality. This belief by believers is based in the turmoil that foments below the flimsiness of their crazy insulatory beliefs.

I presume we all agree that the condition known as Down's Syndrome results from an extra chromosome, correct? At this point in my thought experiment, we don't need to agree or even know "why"... just that such aberration is a known and accepted phenomenon.

Random chance will determine whether or not any particular aberration will demonstrate a survival/reproductive advantage or disadvantage. In the case such aberration effects an advantage, said organisms will thrive and propagate, thus permitting, over time, many more opportunities for another such phenomenon of unknown cause to occur. When this sequence of events continues to repeat itself over an even greater period of time, it will eventually result in the formation of a brand new species.

It's really not that much of a stretch to imagine this if you extrapolate what we all know and agree upon. We humans just have too limited a perspective of time to accept this intuitively, that's all.

LOL Rooster: I think we all pretty much agree that our politicians aren't helping anybody too much these days!!

CAN'T WE ARGUE ABOUT POLITICS???

gfan: When you state:They are taking a free ride on the backs of all humans who are intelligent and courageous. Shame on them! Are you saying that believers are not human and not intelligent or courageous?
I for one have never forced any "of my darkness"??? on any non believer. I have friends who are non believers and it might be hard for you to picture this BUT we all get along and we don't insult one another for our "beliefs" I have accepted the fact that you don't believe in God and that is your choice as it is my choice to believe in God. I am not dangerous to anyone and I don't force my beliefs on anyone and I don't insult anyone who says they don't believe as I do.
I totally understand that there are some religious people who are dangerous just as there are non religious people who also are dangerous. People will be people and there are good and bad and we have to live with that and do what we feel is right in our own lives.

Hey, let's not leave out the centuries-long battle of Ptolemy, Copernicus, et al. vs the Catholic Church.

gf: "Why didn't address the part of my post that explains your projective misunderstanding of non-believers?"
.
I was addressing your misunderstanding of believers.
.
gf:"The bureaucratic church for centuries trashed all scientific and medical developments. Your ignorance about this shows you are no scholar."
.
I'm not ignorant about the history of the church. I mentioned Christians scientists that proved them wrong and started the modern branches of science.
.
gf: "the evolution of one species into another (phylogeny) has been observed by way of extrapolating the meaning of fossil evidence."
.
I'm not talking about changes in species. I'm talking about changes from one KIND into a different KIND. There are many SPECIES of dogs and many SPECIES of wolves. Dogs and wolves can interbreed which makes them the same KIND of animal, canines. But if you tried to tell me that canines and birds had common ancestors, where is the evidence?
.
gf: "It's also been observed in the laboratory with small insects and other small creatures."
.
What was observed? Small changes to an insect that caused it to remain an insect? That I certainly believe. Or was it the type of change that would solidify your belief in molecules to man evolution? What were those insects "evolving" into.?

DrTalk, the evolution of one species into another (phylogeny) has been observed by way of extrapolating the meaning of fossil evidence. It's also been observed in the laboratory with small insects and other small creatures. Your inability to grasp this reveals your deep-rooted doubt about the existence of god. God, by the way, has never been observed in any way, yet you claim to believe in it.

The people you mentioned were not bureaucratic christians. If anything, they were nominal christians -even Mendel. The bureaucratic church for centuries trashed all scientific and medical developments. Your ignorance about this shows you are no scholar. The church spread its contempt for these things to its followers. The same thing is going on today with stem cell research.

Why didn't address the part of my post that explains your projective misunderstanding of non-believers?

gazettefan:"They (believers) reject the science of evolution and then attempt to counter and destroy that science with junk-science."
.
Depends on what you mean by evolution. If you mean small changes over time, then no, they don't reject evolution. If you mean that a kind of animal can change into a different kind of animal after long periods of time, then yes because that's never been observed.
.
gazettefan:"Believers have continually stood in the way of scientific and medical advancements and in so doing have delayed those advancements by centuries."
.
Either or ignorant or you're lying. It was Christian scientists that started many of the the modern branches of science. I'm sure you've heard of Galileo, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Johannes Kepler, Caralus Linnaeus, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pastuer, just to name a few.

I can't go back and respond to every point and question point-for-point. But I can say this:

All of billnewbie's spiel here, including 'grace' and the 'sovereign god', is just a bunch of made up stuff. It doesn't apply to the real world. It's only a way for him and others to separate themselves from everybody else. It's primitive tribalism.

It's their own tribalism and all their other primal instincts that they can't face and come to terms with. They live with that inability to face the truth by projecting their darkness onto non-believers. Non-believers have come to terms with the full nature of their existence and have the intelligence to reject the childish but dangerous fantasies of judeo-christian-islamic belief.

Believers allow this stuff to stunt their intelligence. They reject the science of evolution and then attempt to counter and destroy that science with junk-science. This is barbaric. Believers have continually stood in the way of scientific and medical advancements and in so doing have delayed those advancements by centuries. Whenever they belatedly accept advancements they claim those advancements are a gift of god.

They are taking a free ride on the backs of all humans who are intelligent and courageous. Shame on them!

Excellent answer, Billnewbie. A much better one than I would have come up with. Thank you.

Yes, the offer of grace through Christ is a test, but not a test of righteousness as we each have thoroughly failed that test. The test of the worthiness of grace is one of humility. Can we agree with God’s opinion of us and will we accept His grace, an act of submission to His will. It is true that God denies us the absolute proof of His existence that so many demand as that would negate free will, but it is interesting to note that in the story of Adam and Eve they had full knowledge of God, proof positive, and yet they still chose to sin. So it seems obvious to me that the strength of character that God demands of us does not lie in a righteousness we cannot attain but in humility which for many people is equally unattainable. Once one has attained humility and thus grace, then living righteously is attainable and even desired.

I don't believe in atheists, but if you are one, aren't you in a better position to answer the question of whether an atheist has a conscience? Since the ones who claim to be atheists protest vigorously that they are moral it seems the answer is that yes, atheists have a conscience and that God gave it to them. The fact that they deny that God is the source is obvious, but whether their reasoning for its actual source is valid is, it seems to me, the better question.
.
In a universe otherwise devoid of the knowledge of good and evil there lives a species with a well develop sense of morality (humans). That species has a propensity towards evil and an unexplainable urge to do good, an urge it is free to ignore but an urge so powerful as to drive an individual to excessive rationalizations, even if only to that individual itself, to justify and excuse its evil even to the point of calling it good. And why, particularly in relation to life’s little foibles such as “white lies” the very title of which is a rationalization that the infraction is harmless and therefore not evil at all, do they feel this need to rationalize? The fact is that we all know the difference between good and evil and we all know what the right thing to do is. Even when we just consider doing wrong we feel guilt which we try to mitigate with rationalizations, and then in spite of all that we often choose to do wrong just the same with well considered excuses at the ready. If there is no conscience and no God at its source, what a strange species we are. Could anyone trust the reasoning power of such a race?

billnewbie -- Do you believe atheists have no consciences or do you believe atheists were given consciences by God but simply refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Exactly right, Bill, except I believe our free-will is a gift from God. It was, you might say, His last act of complete freedom. I don't think it was a mistake or happenstance, or corruption and decay of the perfect world God created. God granted us free will for a very specific reason. I said much earlier that one of the reasons we're on this earth is to be tested and judged. If you remember the last thread, Athlea argued that God could weigh a soul in the absence of a life to judge it against. I believe you and I both rejected that notion, and the concept of original sin that is related to it. God granted us complete freedom to see what we would do with it. I don't think the afterlife is simply sitting on clouds playing lutes. There is work for us there just as there is work for us here. This life, then, is a sort of placement test. It's also the reason God intentionally denies man proof of His existence. It doesn't take much strength of character to obey a God you KNOW exists.
Yeah, that's a bit of an oversimplification, but I hope you get my gist.

MDC-Thank you for clarifying. As to the trinity what finite mind can wrap itself around that one. we do know God the Son always existed with the Father but He did not take on flesh until His incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth. No parlor trick, he still has a body and has limited Himself in that sense for our sake. God the Father is Spirit as John 4 makes clear.

Back to your point though, Dr, you see then why a clear and reasonable definition of "omnipotent" is required. Armed with a reasonable understanding of what "all powerful" means, we escape the semantic traps laid by the atheists, exposing them as non sequitur. Simply saying "God can do anything" allows for obvious contradictions.

Why does God allow evil and the suffering of the innocent? The answer is free will. Why doesn’t he intervene to alleviate that suffering? Again the answer is free will. For free will to be free, it must be free to act. If our will is free to act then it must be able to choose evil or it is not free. Why does God then allow free will since it is responsible for so much evil? Apparently because the beneficial consequences of free will outweigh the detrimental ones. Whether God is responsible for free will, or it is just the result of evolution or some other as yet unknown natural mechanism, free will has great value to us. None of us is willing to give it up even though great evil can and often does result. God apparently thinks so too. That is why to be human one must have free will and the ability to commit evil. And since we choose to do evil by our own volition, it is we that are responsible for it. In short, the corruption of humanity was humanity’s choice and as such, humanity’s fault.
.
Still, God has done some things to deter our evil choices. He has given us a conscience which urges us to choose good but does not stop our free will from choosing evil. He also gave us government by which we actively restrain ourselves from the commission of evil particularly committed against each other. So while child rape and murder do happen, the frequency of these evil acts is vastly reduced by the things that God has done to deter them. Considering the volume of evil that would be done without these dispensations, it’s remarkable how infrequently such acts occur in comparison to what would be it there were no such Divine restraints.

No, that's GODmother, MDC. It's her JOB to hassle me, which she does once ever decade or so. The only guilt comes in her reminding me of HER failure in this regard. Then I remind her of the hopeless of her mission and we laugh.

Dr: I have a question: Is knowledge finite? I realize the question is pretty metaphysical, and mostly rhetorical (and answering "no" severely hamstrings one of my major points), but it is interesting. On the one hand you could argue that since the universe is constantly changing, and the prevailing belief of science is that chaos and uncertainty are fundamental attributes of the universe. If that is true, then even if you knew everything about every particle in the universe at one moment, we don't know what the universe will be like in the next moment (important because if we remove uncertainty, then the universe is deterministic, which is counter to free-will). But the assumption relies on the observer being bound by time. If God's power to move within the various dimensions of the universe at will includes the ability to move within time, then uncertainty is again removed. I guess it's not really a question, just a mental exercise.

Yeah, Grandmas are special. No one else I know can make you feel quite so guilty while smiling sweetly. A gentle prod from Grandma has more weight than the heaviest club and cuts deeper than the sharpest spears wielded by mere mortals.

MDC...:"If we have free-will (which I contend we do), then God has very little freedom to exercise His will, lest it interfere with ours."
.
That's kind of what bibledude was saying. There are things that God can't do (He can't learn because He already knows everything, He can't sin..). God can't do anything that goes against His nature. He also can't stop evil if doing so will produce a greater evil like interfering with our free will.

Your beliefs sound a lot like my Godmother's, MDC. She is one of my all time favorite people, despite being the only person who (good-naturedly) harshes my otherwise perfectly mellow atheist buzz.

gazettefan: "DrTalk is asking me a question about an issue that I've already answered and explained here over the last few days."
.
You keep bringing up the existence of evil even though billnewbie and I have given you an answer. You basically reject our answers. So I keep asking you the same question because you haven't given me a satisfactory answer.

As for God changing his mind, I believe it is we that change. Just as men grow from children to adults, we as a people have grown in maturity and knowledge. It is reasonable then to believe that when the world was young, God treated Man as a parent treats a Child: seemingly arbitrarily, to protect them from dangers they cannot understand. But as we grow, we assume more responsibility for our actions, and the laws given by God change to reflect that.

Bibledude: I'm not 100% sure I follow your question, mostly because it is the opposite of what I believe. You used the word 'anthropomorphisms', which means to assign human-like qualities to non-human entities. I gather, then, that you think I believe God is not human-like. I believe the opposite: I take "created in His image" far more literally than the orthodox Christian view. I didn't mean to imply that God has no will, no mind or passions. I simply meant that He is very limited in His ability to act on them. Scripture is clear that it is God's will that all His children return to Him. What, then, prevents Him from acting on His will? It would be a simple thing for Him to prevent men from committing evil, having evil thoughts, or in any other way endangering their souls. For that matter, why put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden to begin with? Why would a being with complete sovereignty, power and knowledge allow anything to exist that might frustrate His will? Not because He has none, but because He must.
.
When I say I take "in His image" literally, consider this: Christ was resurrected and ascended into the Heavens with His physical body. Was that simply a parlor trick for our benefit? Or is it not reasonable to suppose that God in fact is a literal being of flesh and bone? Such a belief answers the "omnipresence" problem as well: we are told God is everywhere. But does that mean that God is a disembodied omnipresent entity who's being fills the universe? How do we reconcile that with the knowledge that God cannot abide in the presence of evil? Could it not be that God's influence, His power and His love are everywhere in the universe without requiring Him to literally "be" everywhere? It also changes the notion of the Godhead. We are told that God is simultaneously three beings, yet one being. This is obviously a messy notion for humans to comprehend. But what if that "oneness" refers to unity in purpose and intent; that they are three unique, distinct and literal beings, operating in complete agreement? Why single out the Holy Ghost is being without a body (hence the name 'ghost'), if He was not unique in that regard?
.
The God of orthodox Christianity is indeed utterly alien to Man, ineffable and incomprehensible. How does one reconcile that God with a God that walked and talked with Adam in the Garden, a God that created Man in His image? Orthodox Christianity requires too much mental acrobatics for me to believe. I prefer to believe that the universe is founded on plain and simple truths, immutable and primeval even to God. I believe that God has only two attributes of note: perfect knowledge of those truths, and perfect love. All of His other attributes follow from these two, and all other truths follow from those fundamental truths.

Thanks, bibledude. Then I take it you accurately inferred my point that, implicit in their acceptance of unilateral rules, the players have tacitly agreed to accept any and all of the inventor's actions, motives or plans without questioning them?

Bill, if God is sovereign, just and merciful, then how do you answer GF's most constant question: is not God then directly responsible for every act of evil done by Man? If God has the power to act and does not, if God can have an intimate and loving relationship with each of us, why allow evil men to rape torture and kill innocent children?
.
Your thesis is sound until compared to the cold light of reality. You cannot grant God complete power and authority without also burdening Him with complete responsibility and blame for evil. If there is no power or law separate from God, if God embodies all of creation, then how is He not soiled by evil as well? Your rhetoric disguises the unseemly aspects of that which we all know to be true.

GF --Of course we are all in this together. No argument from me on that point. Where you and I appear to differ is that I don't care about another person's beliefs, only their behaviors. It's the Golden Rule. I judge others how I wish to be judged. Believers I consider to be personal friends agree with me on this point.

I mentioned somewhere, miles below, about being opposed to the whole notion of "hate crimes". The inescapable fact of hate crimes is that a quantifiable punishment is ordered for one's thoughts or beliefs. All Americans should be outraged by such a notion.

Let me ask this, GF: Would you any feel differently about any aspect of the 9/11 events if the terrorists had been atheists? (For a number of reasons, please don't say that no atheist would ever do such thing.)

MDC- Your views are pretty outside Orthodox Christian beliefs, which is fine I just had you pegged a little differently. So in your opinion, all the references in the Bible to God changung His mind about things, which happens many times, are all anthropomorphisms?
FOTH-excellent analogy.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, MDC. I've always been especially interested in trying to understand how the exceptionally intelligent believer reconciles faith with reason. For me, trying to do that would be like an Abbott and Costello bit playing endlessly in my head. Thank God for atheism!

I did not say impotent. I said not free. Compare a dictator to an elected official. The subjects of the dictator have no freedom, but he has complete freedom. The citizens of a democracy have great freedom, but the elected official has very little freedom to exercise his will. If God is a dictator, then we have no freedom, and free-will is only an illusion. If this is true, then all our actions are pointless, save perhaps our efforts to appease or avoid notice from a cruel God. If we have free-will (which I contend we do), then God has very little freedom to exercise His will, lest it interfere with ours. The two are mutually exclusive. He can tell us what His will is, He can answer our prayers asking for help (so long as that request is in accord with His will), but He can not act arbitrarily.
.
Bill will accuse me of putting God in a box again. I am not putting God in any box. God put God in a box by granting us the gift of free-will.

Rebellion to God’s sovereignty is the key to understanding both the substance of anti-theism (which is also known by its alias, atheism) and the nature of sin. If God is sovereign (he would not be God if He were not), then he is owed allegiance by His subjects, His creations, us. That means not only a sense of reverence to Him, but a sense of accountability as well. And that is what so many find so difficult to accept. When one reads the rhetoric of an anti-theist, inevitably they get around to condemning the idea that they are subject to the authority of that Deity they usually deny the existence thereof. Their objection to that concept, that they are subject to the “whims” of God is the source of their passion, the driving purpose of their argument.
.
It’s not just anti-theists that rebel against God’s Sovereignty. When Adam and Eve ate that forbidden fruit, it wasn’t the eating that was the problem. Adam and Eve wanted to be like God. They wanted sovereignty over themselves. Whether one accepts the story of Adam and Eve as historical or allegorical, the lesson is clear. Humanity rebelled against God’s sovereignty and that rebellion continues to this day as is manifested in the anti-theism movement.
.
Do we have free will? One really needs not ask that question since we all know that we do. And we all find that our free will is restrained on a daily basis by our sovereign government since our free will often leads us to choose to do evil. That sovereignty is the authority by which government rules our lives. We are not free to rebel against that sovereignty without consequence such as prison sentences. And that government is free to restrain our activity as it sees fit. While we live under a form of government that is less restrictive than many others, our government still does restrict us as that is ultimately its purpose. Without the sovereignty of government we would live in chaos, at the mercy of the strongest among us as the animals do. Sovereignty then is the authority to rule, which is inherent in the nature of God and by His proxy, government
.
It is true to say that God’s sovereignty allows Him to do as He wills. If sovereignty were his main or only attribute we would be at the mercy of a capricious Being indeed. But God has many other attributes. He acts in accordance with all of them. So the contention that God is restricted in his actions is true, but those restrictions are his other attributes, not some outside power or influence or even an immutable law. He does not contradict himself. More examples of His attributes are Justice and Mercy. He judges our actions and he offers mercy through Christ. Those who reject His sovereignty also reject His judgment and therefore their need for mercy.

foolonthehill, I answered the question. My answer factored in a correction: we are in the game of religiosity even though we are opposed to it. We are in the believer's game whether we like it or not. That's why your "game" analogy doesn't apply. Consider that there were fellow non-believers in those planes on 9/11.

MDC..., excellent anticipation (your 11:01 post) of a point I intended to make. The effect of the "sovereign god" and no god are the same in the reality of human life (save for the claim of the afterlife by believers). I submit that this same effect is proof of no god -a selfish need for an "afterlife" is an incentive for the continual need for believers to believe in god.

I have work to do. Back later.

MDC, I was afraid someone would infer a greater than intended connection between religion and a game. I even considered stating a disclaimer to that effect.

Computer games are a real-world example of my analogy. The creator (programmer) is omniscient within the context of that game. He/she can also create secret back doors. These conditions exist before the game is released. The players know and accept this.

The only purpose of my analogy was to demonstrate how I, personally, am able to accept billnewbie's beliefs as consistent and NOT self-contradictory.

Your own image of God is fascinating, though I would have a hard time visualizing your concept of the impotent omnipotent God.

If fact, FOTH, your comment goes to the heart of my disagreement with Bill and Dr.: they contend that God is the most free being in the universe. Being all powerful and all knowing, he can do whatever He wills. I argue the exact opposite: God is the least free being in the universe. Being perfect good (and thus unable to do evil), having all the power (and thus all the responsibility) and being all knowing (thus having full knowledge of the consequences of His actions), He has NO freedom to exercise His will arbitrarily.
.
GF's obvious response would be "what then is the difference between your God and no God at all?" That is an interesting question, and one I'll leave to simmer for a while.

By evading my question you concede my point, GF.

The whole issue of God's sovereignty should be a non sequitur to the atheist. An omnipotent god seems like a pretty basic religious percept to me. I mean, what's the point of even having a religion is your god is a wimp? Billnewbie's explanation makes prefect sense to me, when viewed from his perspective. I see no inconsistency. That doesn't mean I share his belief(s), so please don't infer any such thing.

FOTH: your game is in fact not consistent with the definition of a game. A game is a consensual engagement between two or more parties (solo games are engagements between the player and chance, or the creator of the game itself). The rules are laid out at the onset, and all parties agree to them. Any changes to the rules after the game begins must be agreed to by all parties (even if a player objects to a rule change, if he continues to play after a rule is changed, he is giving his consent tacitly).
The "game" you describe is more like a calvinball. If that was your intent- to compare God to an arbitrary child with an overactive imagination, then the analogy would fit. If that is true, however, then it begs the question of what the point is of any of this, from our perspective? Why bother living just to amuse a cruel and arbitrary God? If I believed that, I would kill myself just to spite him.

GF my my point about repeatedly asking a question was in reference to one particular question, that you've posed in response to several notions: you ask 'how does your view of God give consolation to a victim of a crime?'. You've used it to respond to sovereignty, free-will, and having a personal relationship with God. In essence, you're asking how you can feel good about believing in a cruel God. My point is only that the fact that God's nature offers little consolation to a victim is not evidence that there can be no God. For example, you ask 'how does the free-will explanation give consolation to a parent whose child was murdered?'. My response is 'It doesn't. So what?’ I don't think anyone believes that God intends us to feel good all the time. Again, it goes to duality. I can't feel joy without the opportunity to feel pain.
Your contention is that God cannot exist because the conditions for God's existence as set out in the Bible are so contradictory that it is impossible for such a being to exist. My contention is that there are no contradictions in fact, only in interpretation of what we assume those conditions to be.
I agree, as I've illustrated in my discussions with Bill and Dr, that the traditional interpretation of scripture creates insurmountable contradiction, which is why I reject those interpretations. I do not, however, reject God or scripture. Only the conventional wisdom of what scripture actually says about God. My description of God is consistent with itself and reason. You would charge that I am simply doing what the religious have done since the beginning: revising dogma and belief to fit with science and reason. You've made the point more than once that religion makes a claim; science disproves it, so religion adjusts its belief to allow for the new evidence without contradicting scripture. Every time this happens, religion becomes more convoluted and less believable. I wonder, however, why religion is denied the right to revise its beliefs when the scientific method demands that science do just that. While it is true that religion is often too eager to claim "this is true", when instead it should claim "this we believe to be true", science is no less guilt of the same overconfidence. Furthermore, you interpret the proactive stance of science vs. the reactive stance of religion as religion on its heels. The trend would suggest that ultimately religion must fall. I agree, but not because I believe the core of religion is false, that there is no God, but instead because I see science and religion as being different perspectives on the same reality. Mysticism and belief will be replaced by science and fact. Of that I have no doubt. I do not, however, assume that one side is any more likely to be correct in its current assumptions about what those facts are than the other. Science may ultimately do away with the need for religion, but that does not foreclose the possibility that God exists.

foolonthehill, you're the one deflecting. You are applying an inappropriate analogy to the "sovereignty god."

Your reasoning is deductive when it should be inductive.

Apply your analogy to the suffering of a loved one to see how inappropriate it is.

You're deflecting, GF, and I'm not biting. Religion is irrelevant to my analogy. Where is the conflict for the players in my example?

foolonthehill, your analogy suffers from the fact the "game" lacks the crucial element of innocent people suffering -real live innocent people. The game of religion is being played in our world. And we have the right to determine what is moral and not moral in our world. Especially when the "morality" of religion is insensitive to the suffering of human beings, including us. This insensitivity is sometimes to a degree that believers fly plane loads of people into buildings.

Here is a sentence from billnewbie's "sovereignty" post:
---------
"If one views our existence as limited to this physical life only, then killing a person is the worst imaginable immorality there can be."
-----------

billnewbie's "sovereignty" game is an attack on the Humanism of the above quote. I don't know how you can defend the idea of the sovereign god with your analogy.

MDC...., see what I mean?: DrTalk is asking me a question about an issue that I've already answered and explained here over the last few days.

DrTalk, read the "sovereignty" posts of the past few days.

No, that was not my comment, GF. I thought this particular debate was about sovereignty. I'll take religion out of it...

Someone invents a game and as its creator has the right to write all the rules. We should all agree to this point, correct? So, he makes up "n" rules of the game. Then he writes Rule n+1, which says, "Game's creator is not obligated to abide by Rules 1 through Rule n." According to the rules, all players are required to abide by Rules 1 through n while the game's creator is not.

You and I decide we don't like that game but where is the conflict for players who decide to accept Rule 1 through Rule n+1?

gazettefan,
How did you come to the conclusion that belief in God, etc.. is immoral? Is it just your opinion or is there a scientific reason for it?

foolonthehill, if your saying that we agree that the belief in god, scripture, doctrine, and religion (especially in light of billnewbie's "sovereign god")is immoral, then you haven't missed a thing.

Gazettefan --You and I would probably be in close accord as to what constitutes an immoral act. But, when one accepts God as the one and only progenitor of morality, then, by definition, wouldn't any and all of God's acts have to be considered moral? Am I missing something?

bibledude, religiosity stunts the ability to create vivid and effective literary devices.

Lose the attempts at analogy and read the important portion of billnewbie's "sovereign" post. It is cold blooded and unadorned and unencumbered by failed literary devices.
--------------------
"But no one who acknowledges the existence of God could say that God should not act as He sees fit. Yes, that means allowing people to suffer and die. If one views our existence as limited to this physical life only, then killing a person is the worst imaginable immorality there can be. But even if that were true, since God is our Creator, it is within His sovereignty to do with us as He will since we are here because of His will. So indicting God as immoral is a nonsensical argument. Being sovereign and therefore free to act as He sees fit is one of the things that define what God is. And so I will support my contention that God is sovereign with the following quote from Job chapter 38 verse 4."
-------------
I reject this doctrine. It inspires people to fly airplanes into buildings.

Gazzettefan- How did I compare my God to another God? Are you reading the same posts? My illustration was meant to give an example of what sovereignty is. How you reach such far flung conclusions are beyond me.

MDC...., my repetition (almost all of which are freshly written) is in response to repeated questions. Some of those repeated questions come from people who've already asked them. Several of the believers here seem incapable of comprehending easy answers or are incapable of remembering those answers. Some of the repeated questions are from new people.

Considering the laxity of believers when it comes dealing with issues and questions, I am way ahead of them when it comes to comprehension and coherency and the willingness to respond.

And it is not my contention that we should rely on the universe/god for consolation. I'm responding to people who carry the double-think that god and religion are there for them and then make the proclamation of the sovereign god/Jesus.

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

bibledude, what you unwittingly did was put the stamp of humanity on your analogy -and therefore your "god." You couldn't give a "sovereignty" example without comparing your god to another god (blasphemy). This correlates with the fact that humans created god and religion:

There is only supposed to be one god but because there are many human beings -many more- you could only think in terms of more than one god. Your inability to think outside the human box also mirrors that the writers of scripture created more than one god in that scripture.

I realize my analogy isn't perfect but off the top of my head its the best I could do. Does God's sovereignty mean He can do anything someone asked? Though God is sovereign He will not act in ways that are contrary to His nature. He cannot lie for instance. Yes there are times when God's sovereignty seems to conflict with man's free will that is true but I believe both co-exist. Gazettefan you asked how God comforts us. For the believer the comfort is three fold: 1) through the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit 2) through the promises of the Bible 3) through the comfort and concern of others He sends our way to name a few.

Bill, regarding your 3/13 response to me:
Your example is the most obvious response to my claim that there are no unselfish acts. Its answer is also the most difficult. Humans are exceedingly complex, and are capable of rationalizations that they are not even aware of. I can think of at least three ‘selfish’ reasons to lay down one’s life. In any given case, the truth may be a combination of these reasons, or a different one, but there is always a reason. Briefly:

1. The fundamental drive of life is to continue to live, forever if possible. Obviously this is not possible, but we find other ways to extend our life beyond our limited time on this planet. Understanding that, we have to examine how people look at themselves in context. Honoring one’s ancestors is an important part of Chinese culture. This practice is rightly seen as a way to grant a sort of immortality. So long as one’s memory is preserved, they are in some way still alive (since life is the ability to affect the world). The desire to be remembered, to make a mark or do something that will be talked about and affect people after we die is a manifestation of this desire to live forever, and can be motive to give one’s own life.
2. Our children are literal extensions of ourselves. They carry our genes, our personalities, our beliefs, and everything else that defines us. Being younger, they have a longer expected life span than us. So it should not be a surprise that a parent would be willing to lay down his life for his child. In preserving the child’s life, they stay alive as well. Furthermore, many people would rather die than live with the guilt of allowing a child to die to save their own life.
3. We define ourselves in a variety of ways, and the groups that we are part of play a large part in that. If one is truly patriotic, their national identity is literally a part of who they are; if that nation were destroyed, they would cease to be who they are. Preserving that nation and their identity can outweigh the need to preserve individual life. If they lived, but were no longer identified by their nation, they would have, in a sense, died. Dying to defend the ideas that define us is, in a sense, self-preservation, and is reinforced by my previous two points (leaving a lasting impression, and leaving a better world for our children).
.
This list is not exhaustive, but only a primer to illustrate how the human mind can allow it to seemingly contradict the primal directive of self preservation.

Regarding Christ: this is precisely why Christ is so unique. The rest of the story of Christ’s life is simply a back story that builds up to one moment: the world’s only truly and completely unselfish act. No other human could do this, and this is what clearly separates Christ from Man.

Re. the 7 dispensations: first define the word dispensation. Do you define a dispensation as a period of time, or the authority to ‘dispense’ power and wisdom to the world?

Bibledude: your inclusion of the neighbor in your analogy is unnecessary and opens it up to the very criticism GF pointed out.
I'm not sure how much I agree with the underlying premise of your analogy either. Is sovereignty truly without limits? What if instead of a tree, you chose to exert your sovereignty over your dog? Certainly few would argue that the dog has no rights, and is entitled to no protection from your complete sovereignty. As living things, are the dog and the tree substantially different? Can one treat a tree inhumanely, and if so does that limit your sovereignty over the tree?
.
Returning to your analogy, does God truly have complete sovereignty over man? Are we not entitled to certain protections, certain inalienable rights beyond even the reach of God? Your argument is in direct opposition to the free-will stance. God cannot grant true free-will and simultaneously exert perfect sovereignty.

Also, to expect any analogy to extend indefinitely and be perfectly parallel is to deny the very concept of what an analogy is. Analogy is meant only to illustrate- to explain the unknown or difficult to understand by comparing it to the known and understood. Demanding every detail to be the same is disingenuous.
.
I'm not defending any statements by any other poster in this or my previous post- I'm simply pointing out that these two counterarguments you posed are weak.

GF: you bring up the same point over and over, so I have to ask: where does it say that the reality of the universe has to be consoling to it's inhabitants? Disproving a theory on the basis that it is not comforting just doesn't track.

bibledude, in order for an analogy to be valid and effective, all the important elements of the analogy have to represent important elements of the thing being analogized. If the "you" (tree owner) in your analogy represents god, what does the neighbor (owner of the neighboring tree) represent?
-----------------
And how does the sovereign god console you when something bad happens to you, a loved one, or any innocent person?
-----------------
These two questions are not difficult.

Thank you for the kind words, bibledude. The feelings are mutual. I will add your book recommendation to the queue --assuming you made it strictly for academic purposes and not as some sly passive/aggressive attempt to convert me, that is. <grin>

I squirm whenever someone uses the word "rational" in the context of faith, unless you intended it to mean "not insane" there. I am perfectly comfortable using the words "arational" or "alogical" with regards to that realm. On the surface, that philosophy doesn't appear to present any conflict with my own. It may even be an accurate description of my canned answer to the question, "Where do people go when they die, Daddy?"

In any event, I'm in favor of anything that will help keep religion contained within the realm of faith and out of the realm of reason. It would be interesting to see that philosophy converge with the religious movement being promoted by Karen Armstrong.

Gazettefan- The analogy certainly does apply to the issue sovereignty, how could it not? What most Christians believe is not that God causes evil but that God can bring about good from the evil and suffering. Not exactly sure what your question is?

bibledude, does the "owner" of the other "tree" represent another god? Sounds like a Commandment problem.

In any case, your analogy does not apply. How could it? The sovereignty billnewbie mentions has god killing people! C'mon!

When something bad happens to you or a loved one or any other innocent person, this consoles you?!

Do any other believers here agree with the sovereignty thing?
-------------------

I've been trying to get billnewbie to this point for a long time. There were times when I thought it would never happen. But it did, and you bibledude tagged along too. Wow!

billnewbie-you make excellent points as usual. People assume that what is wrong with people is wrong for God. If you plant a tree in your yard you are sovereign over that tree, you can trim it, cut it down, leave it alone or transplant it. You do not have the same sovereignty over your neighbors tree, in fact he would be quite upset if without his permission you cut down his tree. You are sovereign over the tree because it is your tree, your yard. For you to cut down the tree you planted is your choice. This is God's planet, we are His creation, He can do as He pleases according to the theist as this all came from Him and is for Him.

billnewbie, thanks for reposting your "sovereign" post. Ever since you first posted it I've been kicking around the idea of reposting it myself. When I felt reluctant to repost it, it was because I thought to do so would be cruel. I considered the fact that you regretted posting it because it is incredibly condemning of god, Christ, and religion.

I guess now it's OK for me to repost it on occasion whenever the content of these blogs demand it. I hope there are no copyright complications.

Note that you and the "sovereign" post concede that god/Jesus allows people to die. To allow someone to die when you have the ability to prevent that death is murder -murder by the laws of every or almost every nation on earth.

And what god/Jesus also allows by the power of his sovereignty is every other wrong that humans do to each other- humans are off the hook. Furthermore, god/Jesus is guilty of brutalizing humans beyond the realm of humans harming other humans. He allows the brutalization of humans by way of bad luck, diseases, and natural disasters.

This is suppose to console people? It does not.

This whole sovereignty thing came about from the sadistic theme of the Book of Job and the effort by theologians to preserve and firm-up (in the face of grave doubt about god/Jesus/religion) the pretend nature of their status and livelihood. Theology sustains the bureaucracy of the church and theology sustains the abomination of anti-educational christian schools including universities.

As for the non-elite, even though scripture contradicts itself believers continue to believe. Believers continue to believe without the "benefit" of theology as a result of Orwellian double-think -that's what it takes, double-think.

The thinking of believers, clergy, and theologians is dangerous.

Since Gazettefan has yet again chosen to reference another of my posts (and mischaracterizes it as well) I thought that I would repost it here in case anyone is wondering what Gazettefan is on about now.
“Gazettefan seems exultant that, in his view, God acts immorally and that His acts cannot be defended. He has read a few lines of scripture, learned a few biblical stories like the ones about Job and Abraham and has decided that God is amoral. In modern day acts of God, Gazettefan can detect no justifiably divine purpose in saving all of the lives of those in the plane that landed on the Hudson while allowing all of those that crashed in Buffalo last February to die. He defies anyone to quote some scripture that reconciles these apparently amoral acts with the supposed morality of Christianity. Such an endeavor would be a waste of time as Gazettefan has no respect for anything one may quote from the bible. But I will point out an attribute of God that I’m sure Gazettefan will ridicule but never the less explains his contention. That attribute is the sovereignty of God. Only one such as Gazettefan who puts himself on the same level as God, or more accurately, reduces God to the level of a man or denies Him outright could make such statements that God acts immorally. But no one who acknowledges the existence of God could say that God should not act as He sees fit. Yes, that means allowing people to suffer and die. If one views our existence as limited to this physical life only, then killing a person is the worst imaginable immorality there can be. But even if that were true, since God is our Creator, it is within His sovereignty to do with us as He will since we are here because of His will. So indicting God as immoral is a nonsensical argument. Being sovereign and therefore free to act as He sees fit is one of the things that define what God is. And so I will support my contention that God is sovereign with the following quote from Job chapter 38 verse 4
.
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.” So, where were you, Gazettefan?”

fool_on_the_hill- Yes I think you that would be an accurate assessment. It departs from the tradition theistic evidentialist premise which states that there is sufficient evidence to believe in God to saying belief in God is properly basic and therefore though there may be reasons to believe in God they are not necessary for the belief to be rational. Faith and Reason by Nash is a book on the subject dealing with neotic structures. It's graduate level reading but clearly that would be no problem for you, I think you have one of the sharpest minds on the boards.

That darn god of scripture keeps popping up. The esoteric god leaves out the regular people who believe in the god of scripture. Are they going to get the credit needed to get into heaven, or what?

You're welcome, bibledude. No, I'd never even heard that phrase and needed to Google some background. So I don't go off making myself look too stupid extrapolating on my whole 10 minutes worth of knowledge, will you first confirm that I correctly understand the conclusion of premise? That being, "Belief in God is immune to evidentialist criticism."

Where is the defense for the merciful god that most believers wrongly rely on? billnewbie's god -the sovereign- renders prayer as pointless etc.

fool_on_the_hill- Thank you for taking the time to explain the argument, you did a good job in a short space. Have you heard the argument that the existence of God is "properly basic" and not something that has to be proven? For instance, the assume we have minds though we can't see them (I realize that example if a great opportunity for cheap shots) the belief that humans have a mind is properly basic. Entire books have been written on the topic so its hard to summarize in such a short space. As to evil, God will not suspend the natural law or eliminate free will because to do so would result in a greater evil. Namely the removal of free will. Without freewill there cannot be true love or good because they are also the product of freewill. Thanks again fool_on_the_hill.

The excuses for why humans suffer fly in the face of a merciful god. The existence of a non-merciful god (a sovereign or whatever) is a psychological compromise by the fabricators of scripture and the blather of theologians as attempts to reconcile their continued need for belief in the face of an obviously non-existent god.

DrTalk, your Federal Reserve comparison suffers from the fact that we would know it exists with or without counterfeiting. If nothing ever happened to allow us to believe that the FR existed, then it would be reasonable to state that it doesn't exist -you know, like the god thing.

billnewbie, how about expanding on your comment about non-christian groups.

Anyone who finds this discussion interesting may want to watch Bill Moyer's March 13th interview of religious historian Karen Armstrong: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-...

sewaelizebeth --Are you saying, be good simply because it feels good to do so? You don't believe honor or the Golden Rule are valid reasons?

Gazettefan --Thanks for answering my question and sharing your experiences. My own experiences have been much more positive, I must say.

bibledude --Keeping in mind it is thick book and over thirty years since reading it, I'll give it a try.

The thesis is built on pure logic and is quite elegant. I summarized (somewhere below) the basic argument against the concept of creationism --i.e. if all complex beauty presumes a creator, then who created God? The logical proof that God cannot exist --given the assertion that God is supernatural-- is because "existence" is limited to the realm of the natural world. While this may seem trivial or silly on the surface, it requires an understanding of faith and reason as axioms. God, as defined by mainstream religions, can do many things, but "exist" is not one of them. In short, any mental exercise attempting to prove that God exists will always involve the use of circular logic and the abomination of language. Ironically, this also explains why some alleged believers feel the need to rationalize or defend their beliefs. They are, in fact, only confirming their own lack of the very faith they so vehemently defend.

If all that sounded like semantic hocus-pocus, then ask yourself why people feel the need to debate the existence of God but not the existence of Love.

fool_on_the_hill and gazettefan,
The question should really have been asked of gazettefan. The only time it would seem really appropriate to say "Goddammit" would be in response to evil. But in that case it would become an atheist's prayer.
.
Denying the existence of God because of all the evil done in His name is like denying the Federal Researve exists because of all the counterfeitting going on.

the thing that eats at me is that you guys take credit for 'all that is good'.
Oh, well you did this good deed because god is real.
no. i did this good deed because it is right. you would say-it's right because of god.
it can go on and on. who cares!!! if good is being done why argue as to why it is being done? because we're human. no matter what our belief is, we're human.
but bill-you can't take the point of view of an atheist because-simply-you aren't one. who cares? be good. if you think that all that matters is you are being good because you are christian-sucks.
yep-i said it.
be good for the sake of being good-without 'reason'.
justifying it diminishes it.

I can think of one selfless act of charity, particularly from the point of view of the atheist. One who sacrifices his life to save another. Whether in a wartime battle or an act of heroism such as rescuing another from a burning building, when the ultimate sacrifice is risked, what could possibly be "in it" for the hero? I must say, MDCCLXXVI, it seems like a strong contradiction for a Christian to say "there is one simple truth about charity: there is no such thing as an unselfish act. It is not humanly possible" since Christ’s unselfish act is the basis of Christianity.
.
I also take issue with what MDCCLXXV wrote “If morality is the exclusive domain of religion, and not just any religion but of Christianity in particular, then what keeps the non-Christian citizens of the world (both current and those in the past, which if added up would dwarf Christianity in comparison) from eating each other?” Haven’t you heard of the seven dispensations, the second of which is the conscience and the third of which is human government both of which were instituted by God to restrain the immorality of humans. Even in the most isolated primitive tribes there is a rudimentary government expressly for the purpose of keeping some vestige of order to protect the weak from the strong even if it is not well defined.

MDCCLXXVI,
I don't believe I can buy may way into heaven. Tithing is a commandment, but my soul is not at stake if I don't tithe. I am aware that my tithe helps out other, but honestly I don't feel any different than when I didn't tithe. Maybe I'm being selfish - I don't know. I just see it as honoring God.

fool_on_the_hill - Why does Smith say God cannot exist, can you give a brief synopsis? I listen to Free thought radio program when I can and their arguments are pretty weak. I'm wondering what Smith has to say that might be new?

I should clarify: I believe in tithing. I don't tithe as much as I should (so it's not technically a tithe, as the word literally means
a tenth'), but I know I ought to. I am just selfish and lazy. But I recognize that, and don't have an delusions about my own motives to tithe or not tithe. Tithing is for the benefit of my own soul. The benefit to others is incidental. Is that a Christian perspective? No, but it's an honest one.

DrTalk, I never say GODDAMMIT, I say DARWNDAMMIT. Seriously, I don't even understand your question, so I guess my answer would have to be, "no".

As to your second question, posed to Gazettefan, I would like to tweak it in the interest of semantic pedantry. Actually, it is an important distinction because I would have to answer "neither" as you have it constructed. I would need to rephrase it as:

"...do you know God doesn't exist, believe He does not exist or not believe He exists?"

For me, the last one. (I take the distinction between knowing and believing very seriously, plus both are affirmative concepts.)

Incidentally, that Smith book I referenced goes beyond proving that God does NOT exist to proving that God CANNOT exist.

Right, Doc, let's have your response to MDC's post.

And because you started the "Thou shalt not....", why not post all ten commandments? -the only thing the lord ever wrote.

Hasta manana.

Dr: No, I already cited my source in an earlier post: 'How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World'.
As for you're tithing: you want to get into heaven. Either you believe you can buy your way in, or you believe it is a commandment and thus you don't want to disobey and risk you're soul. Or, you want to do good things for other people, which will MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD. Because you, like most people, enjoy feeling good. Or at least less guilty. Either way, it's about how you feel about yourself, and how your actions play into the story you've written for your own life (which is something we all do).
.
Next.

Dr, you're digging holes that the rest of us are getting sick of trying to climb out of. If morality is the exclusive domain of religion, and not just any religion but of Christianity in particular, then what keeps the non-Christian citizens of the world (both current and those in the past, which if added up would dwarf Christianity in comparison) from eating each other? How has civilization survived without direct and constant intervention by God if He is the exclusive souce of morality?

MDC...
You must have read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations." That's where the concept of the "invisible hand" came from. A farmer will work so he can pay the bills, but he ends up helping others by providing food. Helping others wasn't his intention but it was a result of his selfishness.
.
But I'll try to prove you wrong: I tithe. How am I being selfish?

gazettefan: "DrTalk, you believe in god (which, by the way, doesn't exist) but you need a cooperation gene to verify if cooperation has anything to do with morality?"
.
No, I don't need the cooperation gene. But it sounds like you do since you're the one that said morality came about by cooperation. I believe morality was defined by God. "Thou shalt not..."
.
By the way, do you know God doesn't exist or do you BELIEVE He doesn't exit?

DrTalk: It's self evident. Are you even familiar with the notion of the social contract? Personal interests are best served by community building. It follows, then, that individuals who developed those tenancies naturally would have a much greater survival rate and rapidly overwhelm those that did not. The "animal" instinct to kill all competition for resources and the "humane" instinct to gather and form societies are not in opposition- they are different manifestations of the same survival instinct. One is simply more advanced than another, but neither can ever supplant the other, as both are required for survival. Study up on game theory: research has shown that the ability to rapidly switch from competition to cooperation as the situation dictates guarantees the greatest success.
.
Regarding the comments about who has done more for his fellow man and what what their motives were; there is one simple truth about charity: there is no such thing as an unselfish act. It is not humanly possible. Give me one example, I'll show you how that "selfless" act was in fact motivated by selfishness. So you can stop patting yourselves on the back.

gazettefan,
Yes I'm saying we have not evolved from another species to use your terms. Humans have always produced humans. Science hasn't proven otherwise.
.
And just because we can live without tonsils or an appendix doesn't make them vestigial.

DrTalk, you believe in god (which, by the way, doesn't exist) but you need a cooperation gene to verify if cooperation has anything to do with morality? You shouldn't. But whatever you believe or don't believe re: morality, the intricacies of all human behavior has some basis in DNA. And this is something to behold. (Stop wasting your beholding on that other thing.)

In addition to the gene-thing, there's an idea that is wrongly claimed to have originated with christianity (it predates judeo-christian-islamic scripture):

-Treat others as you would have them treat you.-

This is morality based in cooperation.

The use of the tailbone for a tail is vestigial -it is no longer required for our species. Are you denying that the tailbone ever had anything to do with a tail? What about body hair, including facial hair (which is shaved almost everyday) and the hair on hirsute people that they prefer to have removed?

The spleen and the appendix and tonsils are vestigial to the degree that if they have any use, that use is not vital to adulthood and a long life.

Lower back pain and allergies are common in humans and are products of walking upright. This is evidence that we evolved from animals that walked on all fours.

Is it your point that we are not evolved from another species?

gazettefan:"apply my previous post to your next to last post."
.
OK, that makes a litte more sense. But I was responding to a previous post by you, in fact 2 posts, in which you referred to the tailbone as vestigial. Sorry, the tail bone is not vestigial.

gazettefan: "While your most recent post is not responsive to an earlier post by me which was responsive to an earlier post by you."
.
You're right. It was not a response to a previous post by you. That's why I addressed it to all atheists, not just you.

gazettefan: "The human ability for moral behavior is inextricably tied to cooperation. Cooperation is an adaptive mechanism that enhances our survival as individuals and as a species. The quality of how we cooperate is our morality [our good and bad]."
.
Is that you're opinion or is that absolute truth? Can you scientifically prove where morality came from? Have scientists found a "cooperation" gene?

gazettefan,
You're the one that brought up the tailbone being vestigial. You probably think the appendix is also vestigial. But the truth is that it is part of the immune system.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles...
There are no "vestigial" organs. Everything has a purpose.

DrTalk, have you ever earned eternal damnation by saying Jesus Christ?

DrTalk, apply my previous post to your next to last post.

DrTalk, your attention on my tailbone is cause for concern. Are you a priest?

If you have a problem with this post, it will help you to understand that it's responsive to your most recent post. While your most recent post is not responsive to an earlier post by me which was responsive to an earlier post by you. (Read slowly)

A question for atheists: Have you ever said "Goddammit" and really mean it?

gazettefan,

If you think the tailbone is vestigial, I will gladly pay to have yours removed. Truth is, there are muscles attached to it and you can't perform some valuable functions without it. I'm not going to tell you what those functions are - I'm sure you can figure it out.

foolonthehill, I've talked to about five clergy about religion. Their responses range from automatically babbling the internal "logic" of scripture to tacitly revealing that if they ever had faith they certainly lost in somewhere along the way and now don't what to do to earn money in the real work-a-day world.

The talking style of these people is similar to the writing and reasoning style of believers who post here. Non-sequitur, non-responsive, erratic, and self-defeating.

whythefuss, another non-response from you. The problem between us has to do with your non-response to reasonable questions and your baseless complaints.

I mentioned the good that I do in response to the braggadocio of one of your buddies here and his dumb claim that I don't do anything to help others.

Refute the allegation that the New Testament is hateful toward some christians and all non-christians.

Good case in point, why_the_fuss. Scary.

I'm not picking on you and wasn't inferring anything. You just happened to be the first (to my knowledge) reasonable person to broach this subject. I'd really rather not be diatribing to myself.

I've no knowledge about the religious affiliations or beliefs of the Enron crooks. Each person's private reaction to that question says what he/she honestly believes about the relationship between religion and moral behavior. Like you, I would guess the crooks represented a typical cross-section of society at that time.

another sad statement on today's morals

http://www.channel3000.com/entertainment...

gazettefan, you have plenty of room inside your ego to have a nice conversation/debate. Why would one take you seriously when you constantly question someone’s intelligence due to what they believe? I don't need to justify myself to you.
+
So all those nice things you did, did you do them because it was the right thing to do or because it made you feel good. One needs not brag about their good deeds if they are the former.

fool on the hill, my guess is that there were regular church goers and aethist alike in the Enron scandal.
+
Just because you go to Church, it doesn't mean that you are necessarily a better person and I hope I have never inferred so. If so I apologize.
+
I would certainly agree much of what was taboo in the past no longer is. Just compare the TV shows of today to shows from the 70's. Between language, sex, and violence amazing difference.

Thanks, Gazettefan! I presume that is roughly how you would feel about it. So, have you ever made my statement, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, to a preacher?

kleeg, whythefuss, billnewbie, ICY, matthew, and to whomever else it may concern:

None of you can respond to the challenge to reconcile your beliefs and your morality with the morality of judeo-christian-islamic scripture. This is the case even though the basis for your beliefs and morality is supposed to be based on that scripture.

Some of you have read scripture and you therefore know that you would be on untenable ground if you comprehensively cited scripture in response to the challenge.

Some of you have read scripture and due to learning disabilities have failed to truly comprehend it.

Some of you never read scripture and are only partaking in religiosity as an act of fellowship. But what you do not realize is that are acting in support something with a rotten underbelly.

Which ever type you are, show some backbone (with its vestigial tailbone) and take the challenge.

And it is a fact that in western Europe and the Western Hemisphere religiosity correlates with high crime and an unwillingness to substantially help the needy. Conversely, in the western world, lower crime and a willingness to help the needy correlates with diminished religiosity.

Accordingly, to matthew or whoever it was who bragged about his good deeds, I have probably done more for others than you have. And I didn't need a bogeyman breathing down my neck with the threat of eternal damnation as negative motivation.

Yes, that's what I'm getting at, why_the_fuss. At one time, a child heard a reasonably consistent message from every adult in his/her community. That is no longer the case. For better or worse, they are now more free to choose for themselves. I happen to believe that's a good thing, except when it involves the difference between right and wrong. Today there is no community moral compass to guide their way. Personally, I attribute this, in part, to confusion surrounding the meaning of the word "tolerance". Tolerance is a good thing to possess in some ways --in others, not so much. Like when it comes to right and wrong.

Case in point. How many people needed to be "tolerant" of the activities going on in Enron for that to have happened? Well, a whole bunch of people needed to remain silent for that to have happened. It's much easier to build a criminal conspiracy today than it was forty or fifty years ago. No one would have even dreamed of trying to pull that off back then because the first or second person they approached with their scheme would have been shocked and called the cops. As importantly, they would have feared being labeled a social outcast. We don't have social outcasts anymore, at least not many famous ones. But, not only were these folks able to enlist company conspirators, they enlisted the help of outside lawyers, certified accountants, regulators, etc. That scam couldn't have been pulled off without everyone on board. Yet, years into it, only one person "squealed". One intolerant person in the whole bunch.

So, bringing this back to religion, how many of those Enron conspirators do you suppose were regular church goers and how many of them were atheists like me?

foolonthehill, not only am I asked more questions than anyone else here, I answer more questions than anyone else here.

I always meant to get your question but got distracted and pressed for time.

As long as a preacher isn't trying to foist his politics on me (whether they are my politics or not) and whether or not he is trying to wheedled my money and property from me, some of what preachers say is good. The problem lies in the magical thinking of the sermon (the claim that a supernatural being is in the mix of human life). This sort of thing offends the intellect and encourages the ignorant to stay ignorant.

And, the problem with the positive stuff is that there is always something overwhemingly countervailing in scripture: Love your neighbor. But kill your neighbor if he isn't the right kind of christian or not christian at all.

I'll repost a comment from another story to expand on this.

Fool on the hill
+
I can certainly understand your perspective on that sentiment. Essentially most messages preachers give are about being a good person, loving your neighbor, understanding that we all have evil/mischievous tendencies.
+
Taking it to the next level, why you should do those things is different for an atheist vs. a Christian.
+
I do truly believe that most people regardless of whether they believe in God or they are non-believers are at heart good people.
+
Where I see the decay is that society without faith begins to allow looser interpretation of what is right and wrong, because it is more about a personal satisfaction and less about a higher purpose and what I can do for others.
+
I am not sure if that is what you are looking for, but that is my two cents.

I understand your position, why_the_fuss, but I have no interest in debating theology or religion. Understand that, as an atheist, I have no problem conceptually separating theism from morality or the social functions of a church from religion. I once asked Gazettefan if he'd ever told a preacher, "I really liked what you said except for all that God nonsense." I never got a direct answer on that question from anyone. Maybe it is my own unique perspective but I've said that on several occasions. For some reason, no one seems to want to discuss this perspective.

Fool on the hill, your point is clear.
+
I just find it interesting that there seems to be direct relationship between moral decay and decreased religiosity (see web for recent articles on this).
+
It is no longer cool to practice your faith, and yet we have more unwed mothers, more fathers who are not part of their children’s lives, business people who lie and cheat to get at ahead even at the cost of others.
+
That isn't to say that organized religion will solve all the world's ills because as gazettefan likes to point out, there are still evil things that happen within the confines of a religious organization.
+
The core of Christianity is to love God and one another. There is nothing wrong with that principle. When you start picking and choosing your citations out of the Bible it is easier to tell your side of the story. You need to read the whole story to understand it completely.
+
Speaking of upright examples of fatherhood, I would strongly recommend reading Quiet Strength by Tony Dungy. Anyone who is a father or may be some day should really read this book. I am anxious to read his new book as well.

Since Gazettefan saw fit to copy and paste his response to what I wrote on that other blog he mentioned, I think that for the purpose of clarity my post that he referenced should also appear here so that the substance of his post can be accurately weighed.
"One really does have to perform some impressive philosophical gymnastics to arrive at the theory that morality evolved in humans from instincts. In no other creature is instinct even remotely tied to any sense of morality. Yet humans are loaded with it. Evolutionists claim that humans are relatively young compared to nearly every other species. Yet in that short time we have developed a concept of right and wrong that is totally foreign to all other life forms. Not only that, but this bizarre concept actually interferes with the very basic premise of evolution, the survival of the fittest. In all other species, the weak, the sick and the old are left to their own devices and as such their quick demise as the preservation of the species demands. Yet humans are driven to protect and nurture the weakest among us even at the risk of our own wellbeing. Furthermore, only in humans does one find degenerate behavior. When an animal kills there is no spite, no anger, no hatred, no evil motivations at all, only the drive to live. Humans however kill for sport, hatred, lust, greed and that most perplexing purpose of all, revenge. The urge for vengeance is one of the strongest that humans possess. And what is it based on? A sense of morality, an urge to right a wrong, even at the expense of the wellbeing of the vengeance seeker. One can claim that all this is the result of the evolutionary process, but anyone can see that these things are not conducive to the survival of the fittest and therefore they defy evolutionary theory by contradicting it."

Well, I don't abhor what you represent, why_the_fuss, and share your concerns for moral decline in modern society --in particular, the horrendous decline in personal honor and business ethics. You and I won't agree that a decline in religious belief is the cause. However, I am concerned with a decline in the more historical role played by churches in the broader community of family, school, neighborhood, etc. Was I clear in making that distinction?

gazettefan Mar 13, 2009 at 6:49 a.m.
..
Wow, the irony.
..
You can’t even prove that! Yet you demand proof from others.
..
Huh, no irony / hypocrisy there! (Sarcasm)

Gazettefan, thanks for proving my point over and over.
+

I think we all get that you hate religion-and your concept that the world's problems are all religions fault.
+
I can proudly say I'm glad I don't hold your cynical view of religion. I believe that there just as many if not more problems in the world that have nothing to do with religion. In fact it is the absence of faith in life that is leading to the deterioration of the American family. Look at the statistics simply of how children perform in families where the father is not present. If fathers understood their role and based their lives on the model that God laid out for us, maybe there would be less issues in the world. (as far as answering questions – I believe I asked about your father which you neglected to answer. I was merely trying to understand the relationship some of the posters had and how that may tie to their beliefs)
+
You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that.
+
I certainly would never claim to have all the answers and I'm sure there are things on earth that will never make sense or be explained.
+
Go ahead and blast away-I represent what you abhor and I'm OK with that. I only hope that some day you can actually respect my opinion and the opinion of others who oppose your view of the world.

ICY, you are a living fact.

gazettefan Mar 12, 2009 at 10:29
gazettefan Mar 11, 2009 at 10:24
..
Thank you for the continued demonstration!
..
It appears you have been unable to find any facts yet! Perhaps you need more time?

ICY, are you reading that off a 3 by 5 card?

Thanks, SuperDave.

DrTalk, I already explained that in previous exchanges with you. And here is my recent post from the other religion blog.
-------------

billnewbie, some adaptive mechanisms require some thinking to understand them. A colorful bird like a male cardinal would seem to stick out as an easy lunch for a predator. But the color of the male cardinal enhances its mating ability -therefore its ability to reproduce- to a degree that more than offsets the disadvantage of being easy prey.

The human ability for moral behavior is inextricably tied to cooperation. Cooperation is an adaptive mechanism that enhances our survival as individuals and as a species. The quality of how we cooperate is our morality [our good and bad].

Humanity is a species that is part animal; unharbored instincts account for the anti-social behavior of some individuals and some groups [the worst of which are religious groups]; these individuals and groups continue to plague human societies. Anti-social behavior is proof that we evolved from animals -just as our tailbone is proof.

And, certain lower primates have exhibited the ability to harbor and exact revenge and some of the other behaviors you mentioned.
-------------------

We are supposed to get our morality from god? Have you read the bible? He killed, tortured, and mentally abused thousands of people in biblical times. It's more a matter of "god" got his morality from us -when we attach some of the things we think are morally right to the sanction of a supernatural being it only makes matters worse -much worse.

So gazettefan, are you ever going to present the "overwhelming evidence"? Or just continue your circular hyperbole?
..
Since you have previously demonstrated your lack of supporting evidence, I won’t hold my breath.

531 comments! Wow! even I don't have the time to read all of these comments. It's great that this article has caused so many to honestly debate these issues. In particular (from what I've read), gazettefan has exhibited the most tenacity and commitment to expressing his views. This is not to say that I agree with him, just that I respect the intellectual acumen. Kudos.

Gazettefan,

You keep asking why bad things happen if God exists. But you are making a value judgment. If atheism is true, then calling something wrong or right is just mere opinion. If you remove God, then you remove absolute right and wrong.
.
So let me ask you this: If there is no God, how do you determine right and wrong? How did you come to the conclusion that what went on in the Catholic church was wrong?

"Mary, I need to go to that play like I need another hole in my head."
---- Abraham Lincoln

whythefuss, what questions? You're making stuff up, it is you who can't answer questions and stay on point. You're not fooling anyone.

My guess is that Gazettefan likes to hear himself talk.
+
I have been following the postings on the story and do find the debate interesting, however gazettefan continues to dodge questions and continues with the same diatribe over and over, yet acts if he is some great debater.
+
“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.” Abraham Lincoln

ICY, due to your failure to grasp the problem with the Catholic Church in light of the overwhelming evidence and reasoning available to you to grasp that problem and for avoiding a true discussion of that problem without copying and pasting and misapplying one thing for another compels me to disregard almost all of what you post here.

By the way, though they have the same root word, Einstein's "relativity" and the "relativism" akin to political correctness do not correlate.
---------------

If you want to be relevant, here is a question:

How do you reconcile your morality with the morality of scripture? Be sure to factor into your answer that the morality of scripture includes the morality of the Book of Job and the morality in Jesus' insistence that anyone who doesn't accept him as god will eternally be tortured in hell -including all otherwise moral people and including children and babies.

gazettefan Mar 9, 2009 at 4:37 p.m.
..
By your illogic, in comparison to the Catholic Church, society would be better served by shutting down all the schools.
..
An exclusive CBS 2 investigation discovered Treveon Martin is one of at least 818 Chicago Public School students, since 2003, to allege being battered by a teacher or an aide, coach, security guard, or even a principal. In most of those cases - 568 of them - Chicago Public School investigators determined the children were telling the truth....
But even more alarming, in the vast majority of cases, teachers found guilty were only given a slap on the wrist.
..
The interesting thing is that if you do the math, it becomes apparent that the Chicago statistics indicate at least 18,851 students can be confirmed to have been beaten up in American public schools by teachers every year. That's a one in 900 chance of being physically assaulted by a teacher, which makes attending public school more dangerous for children than using a chain saw, mowing the lawn, or shooting off fireworks.
http://cbs2chicago.com/investigations/Pa...
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/02/smack...

1776 Mar 10, 2009 at 9:14 p.m.
..
Wasn’t that one of the major points of Einstein’s Theory? It’s all relative based on the observer.

If I ever implied that humans were able to exercise pure reason it was not my intention. It is beyond doubt that we are not only flawed, but as you pointed out biased as well. To believe we "know" even the most trivial truths is a mistake. Think about the movie 'The Matrix'. Granted, the premise of the movie is entirely fabricated, but the underlying philosophical questions about reality are still valid. We are unable to say with any certainty what is in fact real and what is not. This fact, however, is still not evidence that the universe is not consistient and reasonable, nor is it evidence that there can be no God. We may be uncertain of what the truth is, but truth and reason remain unchallenged.
.
We two have come to the crux of our fundamental disagreement about the nature of God and the universe: you claim God is the progenitor of reason. I claim reason is independent of God, and may in fact be the progenitor of God. It may seem like a trivial "chicken and egg" question on the surface, but as our discussion has illustrated, it has deep and far reaching implications. Granted, in the end it probably doesn't matter to us. Regardless of which view one takes, we both agree that God exists and is the highest authority to which we are responsible. Even if something exists which is beyond the control of even God, our allegiance to Him is in no way diminished. It matters only because it allows us to have faith. I could not believe in your God, nor could you in mine. The end result, however, is the same.

MDC..... thanks for acknowledging my point re: how the Catholic Church is a designed magnet for pedophiles and pederasts.

However, your praise for the validity of christianity by virtue of its many factions is in total opposition to the real reason there are so many christian factions.

The tribalistic hatred for outsiders that is a primitive dynamic of religion is so severe that even minor differences of opinion in scripture etc. causes christians to view other christians as outsiders -thus factions are formed and wars are fought. This undeniable fact hardly says anything positive about christianity.

foolonthehill, in closing:

I was unaware of what you mentioned about the internet. The stuff you mentioned is reason enough for the wild, wild west days of the internet to be over.

The Church isn't supposed to exist for the purpose of child rape, in fact, it's supposed to be the bulwark against that sort of activity.

That the Church is supposed to be the bulwark against such activities is one of two reasons why your comparisons do not apply. The other reason is that macho for cops and death wish for infantry volunteers are not crimes, they are not abominable crimes against children.

How would anyone remove macho and death wish from police work and the infantry? The comparison implies that child rape in the church will always be there and is only a fact of life. This is unacceptable.

Something doesn't have to be written to be a part of an organization's institutionalization.

The celibacy requirement is not duly criticized if it is merely called "stupid." There is an important underlying religious psycho-dynamic that I described in my earlier posts. I stand by what I said. And to describe the transfer problem as merely a natural organizational machination additionally understates the problem.

As my grandfather once told me. There's two things you should never argue about. Politics and religion. It will get you nowhere.

MDCCLXXVI, when your head stops spinning maybe you'll realize that I said that human reasoning is flawed and since that is the only reasoning we as human beings know then "pure" reason is beyond our grasp and is only within the realm of the Almighty, its progenitor.
.
When you claimed that there are no negatives in nature you excluded 2 examples and so I gave you 2 more. Now you say they don't count either so I'll leave it at that, but isn't that an example of flawed human reasoning? One of us is closer to the truth than the other, but which? Is either argument absolutely true? Suppose for a moment that some expert mathematician chimed in on one side or the other, would you believe him if he supported me or would you be as frustrated with him as you seem to be with me? Wouldn’t that be an example of human bias interfering with human reason? What if the “expert” is wrong? What if that false expert had been your teacher? Are any of us immune to that bias and its cumulative effects, even scientists and mathematicians?
.
I quite agree that reason is not a human invention and that seems to me to be compatible with my argument that humans aren’t as good at it as they would like to think while being incompatible with your contention that humans can practice it flawlessly.

GF -- Specific examples of institutionalized child abuse in my reference would be the networks of abusers enabled by Internet chat rooms, usenet newsgroups, etc, with names like "man-boy love", "pre-pubescent erotica", etc. (Obviously, not the Internet, per se.) These institutions were created for the purpose of child abuse. Such is their respective Charters, implicitly.

What part of "agree" don't you understand? I totally agree with your general "magnet hypothesis". I can even extrapolate it by noting how macho men on power trips might be drawn to join a police force or men with a death wish might be drawn into the infantry. These are simply the unintended consequences of said institutions. Simple, predictable correlations; not something written in their Charters any more than official child abuse dogma is scribed anywhere in the Vatican's archives.

Is it naive and ignorant to expect a young man to be celibate? Duh! The institutionalization phenomena you describe is simply that universal tribal behavior of circling the wagons to protect one's own. I believe that says more about denial than any particular truth being denied or tribe practicing said denial. In this case, the truth being denied is not the consequential child abuse but rather the stupidity of the celibacy dogma that encourages it. In other words, the Church is less ashamed of the abuse than of the failed vows of celibacy. The former must be hidden in order to deny the latter.

As for what I am implying... is that we all tend to infer a causal link when the evidence supports only a correlation. Myself included.

(I intend those to be my last comments on the topic of institutionalized child abuse.)

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

"Trying to make an argument that proves (logically) that the very foundations of logic are flawed is so circular and self-contradictory that it induces mild vertigo just trying to think about it."

Great quote, MDC!

The statistics are not mine, they are the researchers. Are you making the point that offenders are still being transferred? I would find that hard to believe. I never said it is not a big deal, it is a terrible thing as are all molestations by any clergy or layman. The catholics did not corner the market on offending "holy" men.

I read with interest the comments/article on Vosen and was disappointed when it abruptly ended. So I just have to say Thank You Very Much! for a (mostly) civil and very interesting discussion here. I feel as if I’ve learned something about people, life itself, and critical thinking. Thanks again and take care, one and all.

GF makes an undeniably true point about how the fringes of society are naturally drawn to religion. I wouldn't necessarily agree that this is evidence that religion is at fault, but his argument that certain people with certain inclinations will be drawn to the priesthood is well made.
.
My personal perspective on the matter is that it seems obvious that Satan will spend the greatest energies undermining the institutions that are the greatest threat to his designs. The fact that there are so many factions of Christianity is, in a roundabout way, evidence to me that Christianity is more likely to be true than competing world religions. I am reminded of the story of the leprechaun who was forced to mark the tree under which his pot of gold was hidden with a ribbon. In an attempt to hide his gold, he marks every tree in the forest with the same ribbon. I won't belabor the point; if you get my analogy great, if not it's really not worth explaining further. Again, I'm not really talking to GF here, since my perspective assumes a belief in Satan to begin with.
.
Bill: This is the last time I'll try to argue this: your examples of "real" negative numbers are still symbolic, and arbitrarily negative. Saying 10-5 is really 10+(-5) is trivial and does not prove your point. You still can't hold "-5" apples in your hand, and you cannot really exert negative pressure- it is simply an indication of direction, is only relevant locally, and is arbitrary. As to the purity of reason: reason is abstract and not restricted by our ability to apprehend truth. If I say 'If A, then B. A, therefore B', this is pure reason and is infallible. It is entirely possible that A may in fact be false even if we assume it is true and thus come to faulty conclusions, but that is why we say 'If A'. You can question the validity of the propositions, but you cannot question the validity of logic itself. Again, I believe reason is not a human invention, but rather a human discovery and is thus not subject to human imperfection by nature, but only by its application by imperfect human minds. Trying to make an argument that proves (logically) that the very foundations of logic are flawed is so circular and self-contradictory that it induces mild vertigo just trying to think about it.

i also think the whole point of this article is missed, it was suppose to make you think about what you can do for the good of this world, not a whole debate on whether god exists or not because if that was the case then wouldn't it be titled "Does God Exist". And yes i am posting the same debate but so is everyone else. You are posting your non beliefs or beliefs because you want to get your point across as do i, there are a lot of better things to do than to argue about whether or not their is a higher power, you could take your intellegence which you all have to help a child in need

gazettefan - i think you can find a calling or what motivates you in life with or without religion, so the whole debate on whether god exists or not is not really all that necessary, it does not take you believing in god to be a good person you can still be. For a lot of people believing their is a higher power gives them hope and faith, which i also believe you can have those things without believing in god. There is a lot of evil in this world, but i believe that is all caused by man and has nothing to do with god, it has to do with people not caring what happens to others or what pain they will inflict on others or themselves.

callit....., is it your contention that all the guilty ones have been caught (the ones that account for your stats)? And do you put any importance on the fact that rapist priests are transferred to new unwitting parishes?

And have you factored the magnitude of the crime itself into your estimation that the whole thing is not that big a deal?

I stand by my earlier posts that the odd nature of celibacy is cause for concern.

Gazettefan-After reading your last two posts I did a little research. Most experts put the abuse rate for priests at 2-3% (the low was .12% and the high 6%). Is it your contention that only abusers are drawn to the priesthood and all priest are only there for victims? Do you also believe that no young man could ever be called to a life of celibacy and to dedicate themselves to service and charity? It seems as though your comments are a bit extreme as to the reality of what has/is truly happening. At worst case 6% are abusers and 94% have followed a path that did not include crimes against children. Aren't you being a little harsh on the vast majority?

latinmami2, religion and god are so important that if we are supposed to base our calling on those things then those things justifiably become a topic for debate. That's how the debate here ties into the story above. People tend to have more than one calling. Apparently one the callings of each of the people who are posting here is to debate religion and the existence of god.

That said: If you specifically ask me to stop posting on this story, I will stop.

foolonthehill, your post seems to imply that I said religiosity causes child rape, period. My point was that religiosity -especially in the form of the Catholic Church- is a custom made magnet for and an intensification of that portion of humanity that rapes children. Recall that the rapists are rapists or potential rapists before they enter the priesthood.

This does not exculpate religion. God and religion are man-made thus everything in religion -good and bad ("evil") and the idea of god- are mirrors of humanity. Religion and god are concoctions of humanity that due to the smallness of thought required to maintain a belief in good and bad and god causes the bad to overpower the good. That is: the smallness of thought is in-and-of-itself bad and has the power and tendency to subsume the good.

The "in-between-world (the world of good and bad)" of the priests who rape children is easily teetered toward the bad because there is no real in-between world that can anchor the strangeness required to be attracted to the priesthood and its religious basis. The child rapist priest's need for love (good) (as sex is attached to love) is subsumed by the bad -love in the form of child rape -which, of course, is an act of violence as indicated by revulsion to it. We should be equally repulsed by the transferring of rapist priests on to new unwitting victims.

The pedophiia and pederasty taking place by way of the internet does not correspond with the institutionalized child rape of the Church. Your use of the word "institutionalized" is too broad (if at all accurate in any way). The Church is a closed system with written and unwritten practices that warrant the word "institution." The internet is no more an institution than the wild, wild west was an institution.

Importantly, the institutionalized child rape in the Church is not speculation, it has been revealed and confessed to. And, the social elements of the Church do not redeem the Church any more than the social elements of organized crime and street gangs redeem those things.

i give up, this is no longer the finding your call forum it is now battle of wits forum. good luck to all of you and may the smartest win

Thanks, latinmame2:

I once was lost but now I'm found.

Gazettefan -- Your explanations are entirely plausible and I wouldn't attempt to refute any of them.

But, consider the relatively recent global phenomenon of pedophiles becoming interconnected via the Internet. Isn't this an example of institutionalized child abuse without any religious component or connection? Wouldn't you be hard pressed to produce nearly as much solid documented evidence of an organized conspiracy within your example as I could produce within my example? Lastly, wouldn't you agree that even you could find more socially redeeming qualities associated with your example of institutionalized child abuse than anyone could ever find associated with my example?

We differ mainly in where we locate religion in the causality flowchart on the grand chalkboard. I tend to view it less strictly or purely as a "cause" and a bit more broadly as an "effect" than you, that's all. Dig?

gfan - um maybe you are lost i believe this is finding your call forum thanks

foolonthehill, important to religion from its beginnings to this day is sexual repression and a violent stance toward outsiders. Almost all adult believers are believers as a result of childhood indoctrination. A free-thinking adult does not take seriously the elements (for example virgin birth) of juedeo-christien-islamic dark fairy tales.

The misogyny of the virgin birth shows itself acutely in the Catholic Church with its relegation of women as sexless servants and with its same-sex hierarchy of males who turn away from the raging sexuality of their youth at the time they enter the seminary and the priesthood.

If you are a young male, what would it take to turn you away from even a normal sex urge and sexual ativity? Insanity? Maybe. But what if your true sexuality (whether this sexuality is above or below the surface of your consciencenous) is something strange and unacceptable to the world at large? Would the strangeness you feel attract you to a strange life? (Even if taken at face value, life in the priesthood is strange.)

What would have to be the nature of that strange life for you to be attracted to the Church? Well if you're attracted to sex with children, especially boys, you would be attracted to the socially and legally sanctioned life of the Church -whether you realized the nature of that attraction or not.

And because the magnet has been in place for centuries, you are preceded by other like-minded males. Thus upon entering the priesthood, you discover that the sexuality that has been your secret is an open secret in your new little world.

That sexuality (which are really acts of violence) mixed with the religious in-place power that adult males have over boys has finally shown itself to the outside world over the last twenty years.

The ever diminishing power of religion (the urge toward atheism) has allowed the victims of child rape in the Church to come forward and reveal the Church's centuries long secret. Also revealed is how institutionalized the whole thing is as the Church hierarchy arches its back toward the outside policing of its true hellish nature.

latinmami2 -- You baffle me. I have made several attempts to engage you in discussion on your own terms. Instead of repeating that same complaint over and over, why don't you simply answer the questions I have already asked you?

GF - your description of the Catholic church's handling of pedophile priests is not in question. What I don't understand is how this is a dependent consequence of religiosity. How does it differ from the cronyism of any other sort of ol' boy network? Is it the element of hypocrisy?

Hey Gazettefan, did you cut and paste the bulk of that last post from one of your previous diatribes or did you create a macro?

foolonthehill, again, no direct problems with the Catholic Church. To say that that's required to be outraged at the Church is to diminish the abomination that's going on there.

When a rapist priest is discovered he is transferred to another parish without warning to the parishioners including the parents and children. He has a fresh flock of children to victimize. This is institutionalized child rape.

When it was discovered that this was going on in the church, the higher-ups said that the church should be allowed to police its own. WHAT?!

Higher-ups are not only culpable indirectly but it's safe to assume that they too are child rapists.

What's going on in the Church is a product of religiosity.

latinmam2, you might be lost. You should be posting on the "Finding your call" blog.

http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2009/feb...

i don't get it, everyone is out to prove why they are right or wrong about their beliefs but no one will bother to share what good they do for themselves or others, does no one do that these days? i just don't get it, this article is a great article and something that does need to be thought about once in a while and everyone is h3!! bent on being the smartest apple in the bunch. That is why the today is no longer a peaceful place to live because barely anyone wants to do anything to help the good of anyone else, only for themselves

DrTalk -- A quick clarification on "burden of proof...". I think MDC uses the word "believer" while I use the word "beholder" --one who perceives. I couldn't recall where I stole that quote but Google thinks it's mine. (I really did steal it, honest.) Regardless, "affirmative position" is definitely the more accurate wording... just not as poetic.

I second MDC's comment about your great posts. That was an excellent explanation of the difference between faith and knowledge. The flip-side of the beholder statement (bad grammar notwithstanding) is, "No one can positively know that something does not exist." One would have to be omniscient.

(Gazettefan should enjoy that last statement. BTW, thanks for making me LOL on your "hell" remark.)

I can't answer your questions about why some atheists are "evangelical". My initial questions on this blog were to better understand Gazettefan's perspective. In my experience, the more vocal atheists are those who feel severally traumatized by Catholicism. While I do agree with their issues in that regard, I don't share their history or perspective. I can get argumentative under the right circumstances, but those are rare occasions. Maybe the answer lies in one's sense of emotional detachment.

gazettefan, i like humor and but i also hope that you really did read this and get what some of them mean, when i first read this article i did think about what it is that i do and can do that makes me feel good, i did not read it and think i need to prove whether or not i even believe in god and that really is what ended up happening and i am hoping that after that post i put up that maybe some people will step back maybe re-read the article and they too will think about what they can do and what they have done, and don't get me wrong i have really enjoyed reading all of the posts because they are a lot more intellegent than what normally goes on in the forums here and all of you who have post your believes are very well spoken and all have good points, i don't say either party is wrong, you are all entitled to believe in whatever you want and believe in whatever helps you get through the day and be a better person for some that is believing there is a high power that created all and that guides us all through life and for some believing is seeing.

latinmami2, your 10:40 post reminds that I have to tell my dentist to take those annoying inspirational posters off his ceiling!!!!

(Just kidding -nice post.)

;~)

i copied the last post out of my email and thought with all of the posts that have been going back and forth that maybe it would be really nice for all of us to step back and remind ourselves of some of these and maybe it will make today better for some of you and myself included

ENLIGHTENED PERSPECTIVES

these were written by Andy Rooney

I've learned.... That the best classroom in the world is at the feet of
an elderly person.

I've learned.... That when you're in love, it shows.

I've learned.... That just one person saying to me, 'You've made my

day!' makes my day.

I've learned.... That having a child fall asleep in your arms is one of
the most peaceful feelings in the world.

I've learned.... That being kind is more important than being right.

I've learned.... That you should never say no to a gift from a child.

I've learned.... That I can always pray for someone when I don't have
the strength to help him in some other way.

I've learned.... That no matter how serious your life requires you to
be, everyone needs a friend to act goofy with.

I've learned.... That sometimes all a person needs is a hand to hold
and a heart to understand.

I've learned.... That simple walks with my father around the block on
summer nights when I was a child did wonders for me as an adult.

I've learned.... That=2
0life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer
it gets to the end, the faster it goes.

I've learned.... That we should be glad God doesn't give us everything
we ask for.

I've learned.... That money doesn't buy class.

I've learned.... That it's those small daily happenings that make life
so spectacular.

I've learned... That under everyone's hard shell is someone who wants
to be appreciated and loved.

I've learned.... That to ignore the facts does not change the facts.

I 've learned.... That when you plan to get even with someone, you are
only letting that person continue to hurt you.

I've learned.... That love, not time, heals all wounds.

I've learned.... That the easiest way for me to grow as a person is to
surround myself with people smarter than I am.

I've learned... That everyone you meet deserves to be greeted with a
smile.

I've learned.... That no one is perfect until you fall in love with
them.

I've learned... That life is tough, but I'm tougher.

I've learned.... That opportunities are never lost, someone will take
the ones you miss.

I've learned.... That when you harbor bitterness, happiness will dock
elsewhere.

I've learned.... That I wish I could have told my Mom that I love her
one more time before she passed away.

I've learned.... That one should keep his words both
soft and tender,
because tomorrow he may have to eat them.

I've learned.... That a smile is an inexpensive way to improve your
looks.

I've learned.... That when your newly born grandchild holds your little
finger in his little fist, that you're hooked for life.

I've learned.... That everyone wants to live on top of the mountain,
but all the happiness and growth occurs while you're climbing it.

I've learned.... That the less time I have to work with, the more
things I get done.

DrTalk, what is the basis for your belief in god? Is it scripture -the parts that portray god as benevolent? Is it organized religion? Is it a personal relationship with god from which you benefit? Is it belief in a god who has grand yet unplayed-out plan which will benefit humanity?

Or is the possible god you're talking about only a product of some abstract, syllogistic thinking that has nothing to with humanity? Because a discussion about this god is pointless to me -and is, I will insist, pointless to humanity.

It's the god of my first paragraph that should really be the discussion at hand here. Are you in any way talking about the god of my first paragraph? If so, I'd like you to reconcile that god and reconcile your belief in that god with what I wrote in my previous post.

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

(To whom it may concern, a copy and past job massaged by changing a word here and there is still a copy and past job. And why have you 'run yourself off' to the innocuous and irrelevant safety of high school physical science?)

gazettefan,
Just to make this clear, you provided me with the evidence for why you BELIEVE that God does not exist. You did not provide me with evidence of the non-existence of God. There's no way you could possible do that. I hope you understand the difference between the two otherwise we will not be able to have a rational discussion.
.
Likewise, I could not provide you with evidece for the exitence of God. I can only provide you with the reasons for me BELIEVING in God.
.
Please see my 2 post response to fool_on_the_hill about the burden of proof. It will all make sense.
.
By the way, I'm still trying to understand your position and I'm not trying to avoid any of your comments.

gazettefan,
None of that proves the non-existence of God, it just proves we don't fully understand God.
.
You said "thousands of innocent people including children and babies are being brutalized and murdered by religious people." But there are atheists that brutalize and murder people as well. Does that prove that God does exit? No, certainly not. The evil argument doesn't hold water.

MDCCLXXVI, is there a difference between math and mathematics? When I search the dictionary I use for the word "math" the definition is one simple word "mathematics". That was and still is my understanding of the meaning of the word.
.
As for mathematical negatives being strictly abstract, I quite disagree. In the following expression, 10-5=5, the -5 is a negative expression particularly when written algebraically, 10+ (-5) =5. In its simplest terms one can say 10 take away 5 is 5. Therefore a negative represents in its most basic sense an absence of a positive as in “there were 10 cookies on this plate but now there are only 5 meaning that there are 5 cookies missing”. On a more complex scale suppose one had a steel weight that weighed 10 pounds meaning that gravity exerts 10 pounds of gravitational attraction on it in the direction of the center of the earth. If one were to suspend a magnet above the steel weight that exerts 5 pounds of magnetic force upon that weight, the magnetic force negates 5 pounds of gravitational force since it attracts the steel in the opposite direction. Therefore in a mathematical expression the gravitational force is represented by the number 10 and the magnetic force is represented by the number -5. Now if my human reason were represented by a scale beneath the weight that was incorrectly calibrated, it may read 6 pounds, an incorrect measurement And if that scale were the only measuring device available, we would never know that our measurement is wrong no matter how earnestly and carefully we weigh the weight just as we may be oblivious to the magnetic force present since we cannot feel it, see it, hear it, taste it or smell it. So not only are we blissfully ignorant of the steel’s true weight, but we are in error of its apparent weight which we also mistake as its true weight. But enough of the math and semantics lessons. Math is objective and its conclusions are verifiable by observation. If you don’t think so, I may think you’re wrong but that doesn’t make you a dim wit.
.
There is a distinct difference between absolute reason and human reason as you stated. But human reason is the only reason we as humans are familiar with, the only reason we can know and that includes the reason we find in mathematics. That “pure” reason even collectively cannot be attained by humans due to the limitations that I’ve mentioned previously. The point I’ve been trying to make is that our reason cannot determine absolutely whether or not God exists.

i see all the reasons why you don't believe in god which is really your choice to believe in what you want. what you really have not said is what you think your calling is because i believe everyone has something they are good at and something to contribute to society, are you trying to say because you don't believe in god you don't have to have a calling and all you have to do is write about why there is no god? i am not in any way putting words in your mouth or anything like that i am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

gfan, do you know what your calling is?

who said god is behind the raping of a child, that is pure evil which is not something that god is, do you have proof that god was behind the rape? People are why there is evil.

DrTalk, the encouragement I should feel for your interest in my opinion is subsumed by the obviousness of your insincerity.

The answers to your question is contained in my recent posts, which of course you've read. Sure you've read them but your only reference to them is that your christianity has been derided.

While there's been enough abstract wheel-spinning about whether god exists, I've explained why god does not exist at the very same time I've explained what's wrong with religion including christianity. Your responses to these explanations avoided all mention of their content except to point out that I derided belief.

I guess someone in your position has to take that tact.

To sum up, the abstractions of looking for god in all the right or wrong places (bn) (-god sure is a slippery devil; all the time he is hiding right there in your heart where he's supposed to be-) are only tactics of avoidance. I mentioned that while reading anyone's posts here, thousands of innocent people including children and babies are being brutalized and murdered by religious people (for scripture reeks with hatred for outsiders) as well as being injured and killed by natural disasters and diseases. These things prove the non-existence of god. No pile words from theology changes that.

Now you can write another post that avoids the important details of this post and instead whine about the derision of your sacred thing.

Maybe you need you need more proof of the non-existence of god:

If god doesn't have the time for when one of your fellow christian clergymen is raping a child, who does he have time for? If god isn't present where the rape takes place, church property, where is he present?

either i have missed it in a previous post or it has not but said, but i would like to know if god did not create everything which is what most people have been taught all their lives, where and how did everything become. I am directing this to the two people who are not believers. You have the right to believe in whatever you would like that is your choice. I am not knocking your decision in any way so please dont take it as so.

fool_on_the_hill,
I certainly understand your analogy of God and leprechauns. That makes sense. You just go on about your life as if God and leprechauns didn't exist and you don't worry about the people that do believe.
.
What I don't understand, and I admit that gazettefan would be a better one to answer this question given his post, are the "missionary" atheists that feel the need to deride Christianity at every turn. How come they don't just go on living theirs lives as if God doesn't exist? How come they didn't write books called "The Leprechaun Delusion," "Leprechauns Are Not Great," or "Letters to a Leprechaun Nation." I'd like to completely understand their animosity toward religion, Christianity in particular. Maybe gazettefan can answer.

DD: Make that second. :) I admitted that to you right before Bill. :) LOL

people believe in god because it gives them hope that their is a great purpose for all of us being here and they also believe because that is what is taught to most of us at an early age despite that no one has come walking into a room holding god by the hand. i don't think anyone should be bashed or questioned like they are part of an fbi ivestigation based on their beliefs, part of being a better person is allowing people to have their beliefs and allowing yourself to have your beliefs.

Dr Talk, while I may disagree with you frequently, your last 2 posts contained some of the most reasonable and intelligent things you've said. I made the case earlier that the burden of proof is on the believer, for reasons that have been discussed at length. You make a great point that I had never considered when you say that the burden of proof is on the affirmative. Thank you.

Bill...
The fact that you apparently read my post and then responded the way you did demonstrates that either your skills are wanting, or that you're reading things into my posts that serve your arguments. First, I made it clear that reason and "human reason", as you like to call it, are distinct. The fact that humans are limited in their ability to apprehend and reason about the universe is not an indictment of reason itself, only of humans.
.
Secondly, you obviously have only a rudimentary understanding of what mathematics is to make the statements you did. The fact that we use fingers to teach children to count and add has absolutely nothing to do with proving mathematics. You're talking about math. Counting real objects. I'm talking about mathematics. They are not the same, and only casually related. As proof, please show me a "real world" example of a negative number. Not symbolically, such as -5V (where the minus sign indicates the direction of flow of electrical current) or a negative balance in your bank book (you don't actually have negative money that you can hold in your hand and count). Mathematics is a pure science, and does not require real world verification, or correlation to real objects and phenomena to be proven correct.
.
Math is a set of tools we use to measure and count the universe. Mathematics is the language the universe is written in. It exists independent of the universe. It is able to describe the universe, but also able to describe things not in the universe. Think of it as a language with words that do not correlate to any object or action, but have meaning nevertheless. It is not a human construct; we do not say that a proof was invented by a mathematician, we say it was discovered by them. This is not accidental. If you really want to see the universe in all it's glory, look neither to the microscope or the telescope. Look to mathematics. The hero of your story for FOTH should have looked in a mathematics text. He wouldn't find God, but he would get a glimpse of the language of God.
.
As to your argument that being created would undermine the power and authority of God: Your father had a father. Was your father's authority in his home diminished by the fact that he had a father? If your grandfather came into your father's home, did his authority preempt that of your father? My argument is still reasonable.

I'm sure it isn't hell, Gazettefan. But if it were, the sign over the door may read "Abandon Hope All Ye That Enter Here", not that I think that would apply to you as you abandoned hope a long time ago.
.
My belief doesn't support my belief????? Maybe you should employ a proofreader.

Faith appears on the surface to be like insanity. We choose to believe based not entirely on evidence but also on emotion. The difference is whether a person actually has enough evidence to make a valid choice. The insane do not, but in my opinion Christians do. My main point of contention is that since there is not enough evidence to either confirm or deny the existence of God, a reasonable person must be open to the possibilities. Absolute statements are not reasonable no matter how vigorously they are stated or who states them. Derision and ridicule are not a substitute for reason. Those who use absolute statements combined with ridicule and derision while claiming superior intellect are intellectually crippled by their own conceit. Keep in mind that conceit is a common problem for the human race and it is not confined to any one group.

foolonthehill, judeo-christian-islamic scripture reeks with violence and hatred.

But for now, like you, I'm going out. Down here the weather is even nicer.

No, billnewbie, I'm not talking about hell!

;~)

billnewbie, again with the diversion and avoidance. And that diversion goes nicely to the point of "running you off". Why would I want to do that? You've already run yourself off. You know, with the esoterica and avoidance -your belief does not support your belief -you've imploded. Again, watch out; that could be big trouble for you!

I just want to elaborate more on my last post. There is a line between what we know and what we don't know. Our speculations about the unknown are based on the things that we do know. My belief that God exists is based on things I know. It's a rational and logical conclusion contrary to someone's previous comment that faith is not rational and logical. I have FAITH that God exists. The moment I were to prove God's existence, my FAITH would be destroyed. Why? Because then I'd no longer have FAITH; I would have KNOWLEDGE of His existence.

fool_on_the_hill,
You are almost correct that the burden of proof is on the believer. It would be more accurate to say the burden of proof is on the affirmative position.
.
I can understand agnosticism which which means no evidence for or against the existence to God. From m-w.com: agnostic is "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
.
I can also understand someone saying either "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God."
.
But what I can't understand is someone saying "God does not exist". Here, take gazettefan's 11:45 post: "And his claim that I am hostile toward god -a thing that doesn't exist- is his way of shirking..." Gazettefan said that god is a thing which does not exist. He is taking an affirmative position. Then he needs to provide evidence.
.
I can provide you with all the evidence and reasons for BELIEVING in God and someone else could provide reasons for not BELIEVING in God and that would be perfectly fine, but to say emphatically that "God exists" or "God does not exist" requires burden of proof.

I am about to head out an enjoy this great weather but wanted to first clarify one point.

I have no "problem" with believers. In fact, 99.9% of my relatives, acquaintances and closest friends are believers, including a few "born-again" Christians. Gazettefan cites instances of inhumane evil promoted by some in the name of faith. While I share his sensibilities with regard to evil, I just don't see how religion is relevant. I abhor the evil acts done by anyone, regardless of their rationalizations for doing it. I don't accept the notion of "hate crimes" either. I wouldn't feel any less or any more contempt for those who flew planes into the twin towers on 9/11 if they had been Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or atheists.

When I say, "God isn't relevant in my life", I truly really mean that exactly the same as saying, "Leprechauns aren't relevant in my life". I don't hate Leprechauns or the people who love them.

bill- you are the first born-again christian that has admitted that to me. NO lie! Anytime I talk to them, they tend to shut down and say well, I am right because I am. They refuse to admit they could be wrong! No one can prove that they are wrong or right, we have only logic and reason, which I still contend would not be given to us by a god only to be asked not to use them to believe in its existence. I still do not see how reasonable people can reasonably deduce that a god exists. It just doesn't make any sense. Or even if it does exist, that we could bottle it up and sell it at some church, synagogue, etc... It doesn't add up! Then when I reasonably come to that conclusion I hear someone say, "yup, now forget all that and just believe." It's is insane.

Gazettefan you are a hoot! Your last lambaste reminds me of something quite Orwellian. It brings to mind Napoleon’s reaction to Snowball's plans for the windmill that Napoleon saw drawn on the shed floor. I wonder, if you and your dogs (I have no one in mind for this analogy) manage to run me off, will you then adopt and implement my "senseless esoterica" as your own, too? I guess you'll just have to keep trying to run me off until you do so we can find the answer, eh? Maybe that is your new found calling.

Great response, foolonthehill.

billnewbie, is coming dangerously close to getting on the bad side of you-know-who (JC).

He seems to be partaking in the blasphemy of preaching another religion and another god: In christianity there is nothing of the game-playing re: seeing god that billnewbie is describing. A person is merely to open his heart to Jesus. billnewbie, should explain and justify the existence of god that way.

At least with elephants we know what it is we search for, FooL_on_the_hill. And yes, it is quite impossible to prove a negative. It is also true that I cannot prove the existence of God, but unlike the elephants in Wisconsin there is no limit to the scope of our search for God other than our own limited abilities which I contend are inadequate to the task. We can scour Wisconsin for elephants, we cannot likewise search the universe much less beyond the universe for what we may not recognize even if we saw It unlike elephants.

billnewbie, apology accepted and no offense taken. (I am actually more offended by latinmami2's apparent refusal to at least acknowledge my comments to her.)

I understand what you are intending to express but --don't take offense at this, nothing personal-- your application of logic is seriously flawed. The short answer is, the burden of proof lies with the beholder. Consider that it simply isn't possible to "prove" the non-existence of something. It is only possible to "prove" its existence.

To prove something exists requires only one instance of proof: I show you the elephant in my garage and I have proven to you that there are indeed elephants in Wisconsin. If, instead, I insisted that you prove to me there are no elephants in Wisconsin, then you would then need to provide verifiable documentation of the inspection of every location that an elephant could possibly reside throughout the entire state of Wisconsin.

What you are tasking me with is about as close to impossible as impossible ever gets. You are asking me to prove the non-existence of, in every instance and in every place in the universe, the very thing that you yourself are unable to prove now exists, or has ever existed, in any one place at any one time.

billnewbie, continues to use senseless esoterica to hide the fact that he is a member of a club that sends non-christians off to eternal torture in hell.

And his claim that I am hostile toward god -a thing that doesn't exist- is his way of shirking the contempt directed at people like him who, if they had their way, would personally send those non-christians off to eternal torture.

Get ready for more senseless esoterica and the religiously agitated, primal tribalism that is the basis for belief.

Why does billnewbie's esoterica come into play as an explanation for the existence of god?

He has a personal relationship with god; he should just clear up the mystery and tell us about that relationship.

What you say is true Don_Diego, I could be wrong. That is why I must rely on faith and so do you which is the point I'm striving to make. Look at Gazettefan's latest posts and you can see that he contends that he relies totally on his reason. Search the internet and invariably you will find that atheist based web pages all rely on their assumed superior reason for their conclusions. Statements such as “I think, therefore I am an atheist” are common among them. Conversely, statements such as the “Jewish Zombie” cliché are also common. Why? I believe that nearly every atheist is conflicted because he knows for one thing that you cannot prove a negative and for a second thing that he is hostile to the very concept of a God to whom one must account. Because of their personal biases (hostility to God) they choose atheism, not because it is proven but because it’s what they wish were true while vehemently denying that their choice is based on belief and therefore faith.

ncpanfan, my willingness to take on the study of religion is consistent with the content of my recent posts here.

Also, your other issue: Why don't we stop the killing? Life is so complicated and messy that when we go to war to stop the killing by others we are then regarded as among the killers.

DonD: As a believer I am more than willing to admit I could be wrong. I don't know but in my heart I hope and pray that my faith is not in vain. We are after all as you say only human and none of us has the answers or proof that is required. Thank you for admitting that you could be wrong also. There are christians and atheists as well who refuse to admit that they could be wrong. The only way we would know for sure was to be there and see it firsthand when the world was created or came to be and unfortunately none of us can say that, we can only go by what we have read and been taught.

billnewbie's 1044 post has the crazy reasoning of conspiracy theorists: The lack of proof for a conspiracy is proof that there was conspiracy i.e. it was a really good conspiracy.

He offers the lack of evidence for the existence of god as evidence for the existence of god. This is orwellian double-think.

MDCCLXXVI, being an apparent fan of human reason stated in its defense “Mathematics is reason in its most pure form. Math is completely unrelated to the “real” world. We do not rely on observation to know that 2 + 2 is 4.” Really? Don’t they teach simple math in elementary school by grouping objects such as fingers, counting the groups, combing those groups and counting again to teach that 2+2 is 4? Don’t we use math to calculate the number of objects in the “real” world? Don’t advanced mathematicians use math to attempt to provide evidence of objects in the “real” universe and to predict how they behave and interact? Mathematics is objective and is based on the “real” world. Isn’t it also true that mathematics is subject to human error, a failure in human reason? It’s true that most people struggle with math at least to some degree as any math teacher can attest. When a person adds 2 and 2 and gets 5 he does so because he believes that 5 is the correct answer showing that his reason is clouded by his lack of understanding and perhaps even his biases (maybe he likes 5 better than 4). Even the most talented mathematician’s spend most of their time attempting to avoid mistakes with mixed results and for much the same reasons.
.
I also reject your postulation that God may be created by a being or perhaps a force to whom we owe no allegiance. Wouldn’t the God that created us by His nature need to borrow or tap into the real creative power behind Him, the true source of creation. If what you say were true? Even if that original Creator endowed his creation with a certain measure of creativity, the Original is still the source and would have the power to set the parameters of the use of creativity and thereby setting its limits. So ultimately, if we were created by a created God, that God would be God only by proxy, not the true God at all and therefore not the true source of life and creation but only the vehicle by which creation arrived, so to speak.

bill-"In conclusion then if we cannot look everywhere and we are not sure of what form we are looking, how can we reasonably say there is no God?" You would have to agree that as a human your powers to reason and deduce might be flawed and therefore your conclusion (that god exists) might be wrong. As an atheist, that is all I am really looking for from christians. Just admit that you could be wrong, as I could be wrong. Afterall, we are only human. I would change your statement to "...how can we reasonably say there is a god?" That is what I think FOTH, GF, and myself have a problem with in regards to christianity (or any religion claiming to be the only way). Modern day/Popular Christianity demands belief that it is correct and all others are wrong. If you are a flawed human being, then your powers of reason and deuction might be flawed, ergo YOU COULD BE WRONG!!!!

(Actually, this question isn't only for you but since you were kind enough to ask me a thoughtful question, I will direct it to you, DrTalk.)

Are you aware of the so-called "god neurons" discovery --a cluster of cells in the human brain that, when electrically stimulated, cause the subject to experience "the knowledge of or presence of God"? I also understand that these neurons are involved in the neurochemical effects of LSD and may be responsible for similar sensations reported by "acid trippers". I see these "god neurons" as presenting somewhat of a quandary for believer and non-believer alike:

For the non-believer, these neurons suggest --at least the possibility of-- a scientifically based capacity or need for, let's call it, "the religious experience". In the very least, they present a fascinating study for the evolutionary scientist.

For the believer, they suggest --at least the possibility-- that the entire religious experience is nothing more than a biochemical illusion, like an acid trip.

MDC: "Atheism has no dogma, no doctrine, no organized form or higher authority... An Atheist is a person who does not believe in God. Nothing more, nothing less."
.
Is it possible for someone to say "I believe in God" and not have any dogma or doctrine, or organized religion? If saying "I don't believe in God" means not having any doctrine, then "I believe in God" would also hold true. On the contrary, if someone where to say "God exists" or "God does not exit" then they do have dogma and doctrine, correct? Let me know if I understood you correctly.

gz: Actually I don't think I phrased it that way but thanks for the answer. I only wondered how you came to know so much about the bible and religion and if it was from a personal experience. I find it interesting that you know so much about it when you don't believe in God and wondered how that came to be. :) Thanks for the input.

Fool_on_the_hill, I apologize for the offense. I did not mean for you to take personally what I wrote. I was trying to make general statements directed at atheism in general, not at specific persons. I made reference to what you had written and I can see that you have some grounds to feel offended. Again, I apologize.
.
That said, I’ll reference yet another statement from Fool_on_the_hill when he wrote about God “If sufficient proof did exist, I most certainly would have seen it by now”. That does help to illustrate my point about the defectiveness of human reason. Consider this if you will. A hypothetical person looked under his bed and found no God. He looked in the closet, he looked under the rug, he looked in the attic and still no God. A thunderstorm passed overhead and our hero went outside, shook his fist at the malevolent sky and was not struck by lightening and then concluded there is no God. Before long, he realized that his search was less than exhaustive and so he set out to search his neighbor’s home. Still no God. He expanded his search to all the homes he could find and when he came to the sea having run out of homes to search he said to himself that there must be no God. He interviewed the masses and could find no one who could say unequivocally that there is a God and after numerous storms and more fist shaking he concluded that there is no God. Night fell, the sky cleared, he looked up and realized that there was more to search. He got a telescope, searched the “heavens” and finally concluded”If God existed, I would have found him by now therefore there is no God”. What if in his search this fellow had found God, how would he know? What does God look like? Some may assume that if we see Him we’ll know Him but on what can we base that assumption? Can we ever say that we have looked in every possible place? Obviously not. In conclusion then if we cannot look everywhere and we are not sure of what form we are looking, how can we reasonably say there is no God? As I’ve contended before, to say there is no God is an act of faith, not faith in a non-existent being, but faith in our own powers of reason and perception which are limited both by their scope and a person’s biases and therefore flawed.

latinmami2, the story is only nominally about religion. The story is really about fellowship and self-improvement. Neither of those things require religion and the belief in god. Religious gatherings are really social gatherings.

I will continue to reject a belief systems that preaches hatred for Jews and anyone else who doesn't accept Christ as his or her lord and savior thus condemning him or her to eternal torture in hell.

My previous two posts are appropriate to the "finding your call" element to the story.

fool_on_the_hill,
Yes, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

I am very glad you asked me that question, DrTalk. The answer is, "I don't know."

Historically, humankind has always followed such remarks with, "Well then, some sort of supernatural being must be responsible." Then, over time, the advancement of science and knowledge provided logical and provable answers to unanswered question after unanswered question. Every minute of every day humankind has fewer occasions to say, "I don't know."

I find it very interesting that inventors of all stripes, including atheists, report experiencing the sensation that the ideas they come up with have "emanated from some external source". I don't fault or disparage you or anyone else for filling that void with "God". I only ask that you try to accept the fact that I, personally, don't find that necessary. I am perfectly fine with "I don't know".

(If you are satisfied with that answer, then I have a question for you.)

gfan, you can believe in whatever you choose to be, you can also be bitter person for the rest of your life or disgruntled whatever term you would like to use, maybe you should go back and read the article again because it talks about doing good and the good things that can come out of life by having a belief in something.

latinmai2, you reminded me of a question from ncpanfan: Does my disgruntlement with religion stem from a direct bad experience with religion? The answer is: NO. (Now, please don't tell me I don't have the right to be disgruntled!)

My analysis of religion comes from my ability and willingness to think clearly about reality. The abominations of god and religion do not justify the existence of religion and the belief in god. All the good stuff that apparently comes from religion and belief comes from our humanity.

thank you ncp for sharing that with me, i think that is very brave and thank you for being a stronger person than most people for having grown up in that situation. i too grew up in a crazy family and from that i have learned how to be a better parent and a better person who is caring and giving.

Dr.Talk, we exist as individuals despite the astronomical odds against that existence. (On the big scale: earth had to be conducive to life; on the smaller scale, all our ancestors had to meet as a result of chances that would be bewildering if anyone ever attempted to predict those chances -and they all had to have sex at just the right moment [which goes to the DNA issue] etc. etc. etc, ad infinitum.)

On some level we all know this. For some of us this knowledge is just too dizzying and is kept below the surface of our awareness with an attachment to religion for the purpose of making things much, much, simpler.

The "gnaw of consciousness" is (to varying degrees) the wonderment we get merely from the fact of being alive. For some of us, it's just to much to take and we dull that sensitivity with an 'order imposing belief' in the supernatural. For the rest of us, we choose not to dull the experience of being alive. We know we are lucky to have gotten our shot and by that alone we experience the real world for what it is: a manifold thing whose breath and scale tantalizes our need to comprehend it -given that it was all a matter of chance. The expression of our need to understand it all brings the fulfillment that is shunned aside by the others who choose to replace the challenge of that fulfillment with the smallness of religion.

OK, on to the topic of "Finding your call"
.
In order to help find your call, you have to know what your gifts are. By gifts, I mean spiritual gifts. Things like: Ministry, Teaching, Exhortation, Giving, Leading, and Showing mercy. You also have to know what your passions are What are you passionate about? Sports, computers, accounting? Most importantly, how are you using your gifts and passions to glorify God?

"Have you ever had anything gnaw away at your consciousness from the depths of you psyche? Some thought or idea or frustration that just won't leave you alone? Something you feel extra passionate about? Something that insists on popping into your mind over and over, regardless of what you happen to be doing or thinking about at the time? That's probably your calling whispering little hints."
.
OK, fool_on_the_hill, I agree with you but how would an atheist or agnosic explain that "gnaw of consciousness?" Is there something coded in each of our DNA that gives us those passions and desires?

Life does what life does. As an observer, it seems to me that the ultimate purpose of all life is to procreate and evolve. Increasing complexity seems to be an common theme, too. (That's not what you're talking about, right MDC?)

Personally, latinmami2, very little of what I manifest or project seems to be a predictable consequence of my parenting, but that's probably true for many people.

As for my own purpose in life, I am strongly driven by my own internal forces and have never been able to empathize with anyone saying, "I just don't know what I want to do with my life". I wish I could relate because it would make me a better parent and friend, but I simply haven't had the experience of that sensation.

Some callings just seem to present themselves to some folks, while other folks never seem to find theirs. Probably, the more things you experience and the more situations you expose yourself to, the more likely that bell will ring for you. Have you ever had anything gnaw away at your consciousness from the depths of you psyche? Some thought or idea or frustration that just won't leave you alone? Something you feel extra passionate about? Something that insists on popping into your mind over and over, regardless of what you happen to be doing or thinking about at the time? That's probably your calling whispering little hints.

The questions are mounting up!!! I'll try to speak to a few.

Free will and god: If I were god I wouldn't let people die just because of a goofy plan whose purpose was to either entertain me or to see if people would ultimately, someday, after millions of innocent people were brutalized, do the right thing. Had I the power, I wouldn't do anything like that even as a human.

As MDC emphasized for me before: God is either evil or doesn't exist. MDC also said that the bad things humans do is not proof that god DOESN'T exist. Well, it's not proof that he DOES exist either given the benevolence that many people attribute to god.

The different explanations for suffering that we get from scripture and theology and theodicy are all rationalizations that attempt to explain a non-existent god. I reject them all. Doctrine should be studied as Mythology is studied.

To rely on these things to explain the existence of god and his plans is unacceptable. These things all have an internal logic that when exposed to the light of day -reality- are illogical.

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

Many questions have piled up since I've been offline. If anyone would like to restate them, please do.

MDCCLXXVI:

You, need to sloooow your roll. Just take a deep breath, and maybe go lay down or something. Really.

Dr: I'm pretty sure I had a point when I asked the question about what form of government Christ might establish after the second coming, but I don't remember now what it was. You're of course correct; the very definition of the word answers the question. I'm pretty sure my question was related to economic issues- i.e. can a theocracy and capitalism co-exist? Like I said, I don't remember now, and it's probably not worth pursuing further anyhow.

Latin... asked "i am confused as to why all of you very smart people posting can not list even one reason why you feel you have a purpose or reason to be hear aside from the fact that you were created by the help of your parents and god".
OK. Let's pretend s/he didn't mention God in the last sentence. I'm curious how an Atheist would respond to his/her (sorry Latin, I don't know or want to guess your gender) question. Do you have a purpose? I am not being flippant, nor do I don't believe Latin was. Justify your existence.

If you believe that God literally created the Universe in 6 Earth days, then we really can’t expect to carry on this conversation in any seriousness. Point of fact: your presuppositions are not based on what God told you. They are based on what you were told God said. In fact, they are based on what someone said God said, then wrote down, and was then transcribed, translated, edited, and reinterpreted by countless people before you. To claim that the Bible is the literal word of God is absurd.
  
I am not asking if this or that might be possible willy-nilly like a child with an overactive imagination. I am proposing real alternative interpretations of scripture. I hold that, while they may or may not be true, they are as valid as any other interpretation and thus warrant serious inquiry. Dismiss them as heresy if you will, but do not dismiss them as wrong simply because they conflict with your particular and peculiar interpretation of scripture.
  

I highly recommend re-reading the paper you referred me to in your own earlier post. The author makes some excellent points about how reasonable various passages and beliefs taken from scripture are. His ‘read the scriptures with a grain of salt’ attitude is refreshing, and very credible in my estimation.
  

I'm not suggesting anyone abandon their belief in God or scripture. I suggesting they try a little lateral thinking. Most of the arguments here are presented in either-or format. Either creation is true, or evolution is true. Either God is as you describe Him to exist, or He does not exist at all. And so on. I'm trying to get people to admit that there are other possibilities, which when understood fundamentally reshape how we consider God.

MDCCLXXVI,
This is in response to your post a couple days ago about what type of government Jesus would establish when He returns. I think, by definition, it would have to be a theocracy.

MDCCLXXVI,
Re: your Mar. 5, 1:08pm post

I'm not limited God either but I am limiting myself to what God has revealed about Himself in his Word.
.
Questions like "Could have have been created?", "Could God have used evolution?", "Could God do this?", "Could God do that?"...
.
Well yes, God COULD do anything, He's God. But the issue of what God COULD do or if God COULD have been created by another God, isn't really a concern. My concern is with what He told us. God certainly COULD have used evolution, but He told us that He created everything in 6 days.
.
Regarding the heavens, the Bible talks about 3 heavens. The first heaven is the atmosphere (Genesis 1:6-8). The second heaven is outer space. (Genesis 1:14-15). In regards to your question about all the galaxies, the Bible says that God stretched out the heavens.(Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 45:12) This "stretching out of the heavens" could be why there's a "red shift" in astronomy. The third heaven is where Christian believe they go when they die. Paul refers to it as the third heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:2. To answer your question: Yes, I think it all makes sense.

I'm not sure which query you're referring to. I was talking about GF's contention that the free will argument fails because it is no comfort to a parent who's child was murdered. My point is that the fact that it is cold comfort does not prove it to be false.

Regarding the comment from the Mormon: too many Christians assume you have to be Christian to behave morally. The simple truth is that Christianity depends on morality, but morality does not depend on Christianity. The morality promoted by Christianity is able to stand on it's own, as a result of recognizing the fact that the social contract is in everyone's best interest. Not everyone is capable of that, however.
It is indeed unfortunate that Christians believe that they have exclusive domain on morality. Being Christian can help one be a better person, but it is not requisite. Now, I won't go so far as to say religion is completely unnecessary, only that it is not necessary to be a good person.
This is one of the reasons people mistakenly say that America is a Christian nation. They reason that the law of the land is guided by the same ethics that guide Christianity. They completely miss the fact that the same basic set of laws would be in place if Christianity were replaced with virtually any other major religion, or no religion at all. Our laws are designed to guarantee the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum number of people. Some personal freedoms are sacrificed for the greater good, and some collective freedoms are sacrificed in order to preserve individual freedom. In fact, it could be reasonably argued that America's laws are ethical not because of but in spite of Christianity.
I know I wandered off point here, but it was a pretty straight forward point to begin with.

gazettfan: "DrTalk, you're wrong about Einstein. The quote I left clearly represents how he viewed religion and god."
.
All I did was quote Einstein. I can only go by what he actually said.

MDC, I don't know if this addresses your query or not. I guess it might be difficult for a believer to imagine the sense of comfort and well-being that comes with not having to deal with the helplessness, uncertainty and confusion associated with a religious belief system. That just may be what so many of my religious friends have felt coming from me, especially members of the clergy. For others, it can be very perplexing.

For instance, a colleague and close friend of many years, a Deacon in the Mormon Church, once said to me out the blue, "You are one of the most "Christian" fellows I have ever known. I just don't understand how you could possibly be an atheist."

Ok. I have another honest question. I wonder gazette have you ever believed in God or the possiblility of a God? The reason I ask is that often in your posts I find that you have alot of knowledge about the Bible and certain aspects of religion. I just wonder if it was forced upon you and that is how you know of it or if you read it on your own, etc... I am curious.
As mentioned before I grew up in a dysfunctional family but my mom made us go to church. As a child it was just somewhere we had to go on Sunday mornings but sometimes it was nice to learn the stories in sunday school or to be with other kids. Although we went it didn't change the fact of what we lived and dealt with at home. This was in a southern baptist church so I remember preachers jumping and yelling on the pulpit on various subjects including hellfire and damnation. I never felt threatened by it but sometimes I did think it was gross to see the spittle coming out of their mouths. :)
But I did not find my faith until my early twenties. I knew about God growing up but knowing and believing are 2 different things.

IF, then yes. GF and co. are not angry with God, however, because they cannot be angry with a being they deny exists. It would be like asking an adult if they were angry with Santa Clause for not bringing them what they wanted for Christmas. The question is circular in nature. They might rightly ask us why we are not angry with God. I've given my response, which GF dismissed as 'somehow horrific' (paraphrasing- not going to dig through 300+ posts to find his exact words). I fail to see how the fact that the nature of the universe would not be comforting to a parent who lost a child is relevant, or how free will is essentially the same as no God at all, but I never really pushed the issue. GF, feel free to expand on your response if you would like.

Now, if a believer is angry with God for allowing evil to exist, then yes, it would follow that they ought to be angry with mankind as well (and probably are).

So by all rights if one is angry with God for letting it happen then one must also be angry with humankind (including themselves) for allowing it to happen as well??

npcfan: for the very same reason God can't (or, to appease GF, won't): freedom. We could prevent evil everywhere in the world. The technology exists. We could lobotomize every child at birth. We could actively monitor the activities of every man woman and child 24/7. But this is a theme which has been explored at great length in modern literature. Consider 1984, or A Clockwork Orange for examinations on this (those are just two examples that spring to mind- there are many others, and probably better ones). The point is that acts that allege to protect and promote the greater good almost always diminish individual good and freedom.

I am glad you stopped murders when you had the chance.
Okay let's say you are right and there is no God, why then are we as humans letting these innocents be killed? I am asking an honest question. No God, only us people. Why do we let it happen? What can we do to end it once and for all so that it never happens again? I know I am against it but what can I do to end it?

ncpanfan, there is documented proof that when I had the opportunity, I stopped others from being killed. But enough of that.

With all due respect, buddie, you're really being wishy-washy about the question you responded to. You nor I can do what god can. I mean for Christ sake (if you'll pardon the reference), people, children, and babies, are being brutalized and murdered as you read this post and your god is doing nothing to stop it!!! Stop with the fauderrall!!! The meaning of it all doesn't come from god having some psychotic plan; the meaning of it all is that there's no god!!!

You can continue to help others while not laboring under the coercion of threats from god. You can continue to do good because you are basically good. Don't sell yourself short.

Oh and by the way Gazette I as a believer have never spread that baloney about how non-believers never do anything nice for others. I always have found that there are good and bad people in every race and creed. Some choose to steal, murder, etc... while others choose to try to treat others in a way they would like to be treated (and not because of religion but because that is how it should be regardless)I have friends who are atheists but they do kind things for others. I know people who claim to be "christians" who never lend a helping hand.
It is like we tell our kids all the time. When you die the only thing you can take with you is your name. Live your life in a way that others will remember all the good things you have done and that you lived your life well because if you mess up and do bad things all the time that is what they will remember. We also tell them that when you find true friends, treat them well because they are a treasure!

foolonthehill:

;~)

Why do we as humans let the murders of innocent people happen? I mean if you are going to blame it on God for letting it happen and not stopping it then you may as well blame everyone (yourself included) else for letting it happen. I am sure that you just like me wish it wasn't happening and the world were a better place but what can we do to stop it other than if we step in when we see it personally happening? Therefore we are all to blame for all the evil and bad things that happen in the world because we don't stop it?? We know it happens and yet we don't stop it??
I as a believer am not intentionally trying to dodge your questions. I would be a fool to say I have all the answers because I do not. I also have many questions of my own regarding religion and faith. I believe in God but yes I have questioned who made God? The scripture tells us He has always been and my human mind says but how can that be but my spiritual side tells me not to dwell on it. (Probably because it would drive me crazy) :)
I guess we should always remember that when we point a finger at someone to blame them there are 4 fingers pointing right back at us! It would be so much easier if everything could be explained whether it be in science or evolution or religion but it is never that simple. We all have questions and none of us can say that we are 100 % ,without a doubt, right.

Congratulations, MDC, you have presented a legitimate, faith-based explanation that need not be supported by reason and cannot be rebutted by reason. I can respect one's right to think that way while not accepting that mode of thinking for myself. Too many believers try to rationalize their beliefs. That's where everything goes awry and Gazettefan's fun begins.

latinmami2, it is true that one of the most fulfilling things a person can do is to help others. Despite the baloney that believers spread about non-believers, I am one of those people who helps others.

If this blog appears to lack good substance it's because believers are dodging the important issues of religion -especially scripture and doctrine. They dodge these issue by lying and nit-picking subjects they know nothing about.

People who attack science do so because science is difficult and demanding. To just believe in a fairy tale and to take nonsensical potshots at something they don't take the effort to comprehend is childish. Yes, childish. But what's to be expected from people who have the chronic need to be parented and to maintain an imaginary friend well into adulthood.

God says in scripture that fathers can sell their misbehaving daughters to other men. God also says that misbehaving children can be stoned to death.

Christian scripture says that non-believers including children and babies will not enter heaven and will go to hell.

Expect the flummary from believers about the existence of god to continue. It's much easier than debating the basis for their belief.

DrTalk, you're wrong about Einstein. The quote I left clearly represents how he viewed religion and god.

The believers should respond to this everlasting question:

While you have god's personal attention (which of course is to your immeasurable benefit at the time), what of the thousands of innocent people, children, and babies who are being brutalized and murdered during the very moments of your exalted communion with the almighty?

That was in response to "If sufficient proof did exist, I most certainly would have seen it by now.", BTW.

FOTH:
A theist would argue (conveniently, even I admit) that the lack of proof of God is intentional, as actual proof would undermine man's right and ability to truly exercise free will. Most religions (I can't say all simply because I am not a theologian and can't speak authoritatively about other world religions) believe that this life is, among other things, a test. We are prevented from seeing or knowing God because it makes the test too easy. I admit that even I have a hard time defending that argument since, as I pointed out, it seems to be an awfully convenient argument to make. Knowing a priori that God will not reveal Himself to us (with notable exceptions) fortifies the 'faith' defense so well it seems to be designed expressly for that purpose. Even so, I suspect that it may be true. What fun is a riddle you already know the answer to? Furthermore, it gives God an out: if we don't KNOW that God exists, then not having perfect faith is excusable. If we did know, however, and still failed to be perfect, then God really has no option but to punish us. As Jack Nicholson said: "You can't handle the truth!"
Maybe, maybe not. I do know that is the party line, however.

FOTH: "Atheism is the result of an absence of proof.
.
No, that's agnosticism.

There are various definitions of agnosticism, none of which comes close to describing me. The most commonly accepted definition is that the existence of God is impossible to prove or any evidence thereof is unknowable. I totally reject that. If sufficient proof did exist, I most certainly would have seen it by now.

In my mind, atheist simply means "a-theist" --without belief in a deity. You don't have any special name for someone who doesn't believe in leprechauns, do you? The failure to be convinced of the existence of leprechauns is not, per se, a "belief". Some people think atheist and anti-theist are one and the same. I am not anti-theist. Do you understand me better now?

fool_on_the_hill,

You're right, it was just semantics. I believe that God has always existed, eternal. When I read your definition, I took it as "nothing existed and then, poof, came into existence." i.e. "nothing created God". So I don't mean nothing created God in that sense, I mean that God simply does not have a creator.

Aaaack!

FOTH: "So you do believe that your God was created by something else, DrTalk? Then I stand corrected."
.
Nice straw man. Find the quote where I said that.

I am not saying that you said that, DR. You accused ME of a straw man:

[fool_on_the_hill:"theist: someone who believes nothing created God."
.
That is also a straw man.]

Dr, that is only a straw man if it is not what a typical theist believes. I understand most theists to believe that God was not created by anything, that God has simply "always been". If that is incorrect, then I apologize for the miss-characterization. Otherwise, it's simply an issue of semantics.

Latin: I'm more than ready to admit that my opinion is wrong. In fact I've changed my mind about a few things in the short time this conversation has gone on. But I disagree with this: "[Y]our opinion is not the only one that is right." I don't buy that. I'm happy to be wrong, but I don't think we can all be right.

Second, I realize many of these comments may sound hostile, biting and just plain petty, but don't presume you know what kind of people any of us are. Have you ever watched a sporting event? Those guys can beat the !@#$% out of each other, but that doesn't mean they dislike each other outside the event, or that they are mean, violent people. Just look at this as a competitive sport and it will make more sense. Yes, the stakes are higher, but the spirit of the game is the same.

MDC, I presumed you were clear on that point, I just wanted to be certain.

I am very interested and keenly connected to all that surrounds us. (Reference my post re: the awe, wonder and spirituality to be found in the study of evolution.)

Like most folks, I have found it counter-intuitive that something as complex and marvelous as the human eye could "just happen" without the aid of some intelligent force. I spent my youth vacillating between agnosticism and belief until reading that Smith book I mentioned. In the 35 years since reading it, I've not experienced a single vacillation or a nanosecond's worth of doubt. I think you, in particular, would find it a quite interesting read.

MD: Yeah I know you weren't directing at me. :) I just wanted to put in my thoughts based off what you said. :)

npcfan:
Right, I get that; I am not trying to diminish the fact that you know in your heart God exists, or mocking that belief. I was calling out Bill for saying that atheists aren't allowed to have the same sense of knowing in their hearts, even if they logically understand it is only a belief. It's not fair to say believers know, while atheists can only believe, when neither side can prove their belief. It is one or the other.

latinmama: Before I found my faith I would have questioned my calling because I grew up in a very dysfunctional family with an alcoholic father who beat my mother among other things. I remember crying and wondering why I was even born and why did I have to deal with all the crap. I moved out my sophomore year to get away from it and I finished high school while I worked full time to support myself.
I found my faith later and what a joy it was. What a comfort to feel the love and peace. It was nice to have hope for a better life. I would have to say my calling has been a couple of things. The first ironically began while I was still at home and dealing with all the crap. I always seemed to be able to comfort others even though my life was such a mess. I loved to make others smile, whether it was to make them laugh at a joke or just ahug when they had a bad day. I still do this today. I like to make others laugh and often a smile to a stranger (nice when they smile back). One never knows what kind of day they are having and that might be the only smile they get all day. It can make all the difference in how you treat others, it can touch someone or possibly change their life.
The second was to have a normal (not dysfunctional) family and to ensure that my kids never had to live in an unhappy situation. They were shown love daily and hugs and kisses were not short in supply. I think I have done well with that one also.

have any of you thought that maybe just maybe your opinion is not the only one that is right. and i see why things are the way they are these days because people can not take the time to even help others or find a calling they only sit a debate on whether or no they are correct about god

Dr didn't say that, FOTH. I did. I'm pretty sure he'll disagree vehemently with me about that, in fact. He has made it very clear that nothing else created God because God is eternal and therefore has no beginning and therefore was never created.

Phew!

FOTH: "So you do believe that your God was created by something else, DrTalk? Then I stand corrected."
.
Nice straw man. Find the quote where I said that.

Actually FOTH, if you read my very first post on this thread (hit page down about 60 times) you'll see that I disagree, somewhat. Since I nitpicked on being clear about the definition of Atheism, I can't then turn around and attribute a set of beliefs (evolution, the big bang, etc.) to Atheism. So strictly speaking you are correct.
.
I hope you will grant me this, however: if we reject God, then common sense demands that we provide some alternative explanation for what we see, unless we are so utterly uninterested in the world that we don't care how or why the world is as it is. I wonder if such an attitude is even possible for an adult human.
If you grant me that, then you have to conceded that there has to be some belief. Unless your position is simply "I don't know, I don't suspect, I don't wonder, I don't believe and I don't care", then there is something, and that something requires some degree of faith.
.
.
.
On a completely unrelated topic: spell check is making me dumber. After all this time, I still can't spell 'atheist' or 'religious', because I keep spelling it incorrectly and letting spell-check fix it, so every time I type it I reinforce my incorrect spelling of it. There is something tragic about that.

So you do believe that your God was created by something else, DrTalk? Then I stand corrected.

i am confused as to why all of you very smart people posting can not list even one reason why you feel you have a purpose or reason to be hear aside from the fact that you were created by the help of your parents and god

FOTH: "Atheism is the result of an absence of proof.
.
No, that's agnosticism.

I'll bet we could redirect the discussion if you answer my question, latinmami2.

MD: :) I have no proof or evidence that God is real but I know God exists in my heart. I have faith in my belief and it sustains me, strengthens me, encourages me and gives me hope. My faith has seen me through good times as well as bad and it was during the bad times that it seemed to matter the most because it brought me peace and comfort and hope.
You are correct when you say we cannot claim God is real because we cannot prove it but in my personal case I have faith that my faith is not in vain and to me He is very real. He has changed my life in so many ways. I am truly thankful for my blessings and even for the trials I have had that in the end made me a stronger or better person.
Perhaps in others eyes that makes me foolish because I have this belief but in the end it doesn't matter anyways. We all are entitled to our own beliefs.

fool_on_the_hill:"theist: someone who believes nothing created God."
.
That is also a straw man. I already post your faulty logic regarding that definition and your faulty logic that "Believers do themselves no service by attempting to apply reason and logic in their efforts to justify their faith to themselves and others. Faith does not require any manner or form of rational justification"
.
I believe God exists based on the evidence of things that I have seen. It's a rational and logical belief.

Yes, this discussion is grossly off topic from the orginal article.
********************************
is the discussion off topic because no one can find a greater purpose to being other than trying to out smart the other poster? I think all that has been posting are making great points and you all are very smart but how about using that smartness to do some good and find your calling

One more thing, Bill, and then I have to go for a while:
You talk about ‘human reason’ and the fact that man is limited in his capacity to apprehend the universe as if that were somehow proof that reason is imperfect. Wrong. Reason is abstract and not limited by our ability to observe the universe. Mathematics is reason in its most pure form. Math is completely unrelated to the “real” world. We do not rely on observation to know that 2 + 2 is 4. The numbers and symbols are of course human constructs, but they are only symbolic representatives for abstract concepts. The fact that we use math in the real world does not mean we need the real world to prove math. Reality is a subset of Mathematics. Just because we are imperfect does not mean that math is imperfect. Just because our understanding and application of math is imperfect does not mean math is imperfect. It also does not mean that math is something other than what we understand and recognize it to be. It may be (and almost certainly is) more than we understand, but not different from what we understand. Likewise with God and the Universe. Just because we cannot fully comprehend God or the Universe does not mean that it is utterly alien and incomprehensible. We are made in God’s image, and are rational beings. The universe is God’s creation, and is a rational creation. Why then expect that God is not also rational?

An important point of correction, which may seem trivially pedantic on the surface, MDC. You said:

[...No, he can only truly say 'I believe there is no God' which is a statement of faith."]

I hold no such "belief" and have no inside knowledge to support any such belief. The absence of logically consistent facts and convincing evidence any such supernatural natural being (regardless of what anyone might call him or her) renders me unable to behold any belief. As you implied in an earlier post, the burden of proof lies with the beholder. Atheism is the result of an absence of proof.

As I stated earlier, faith and reason are antithetical. There is absolutely no element of faith in atheism. Do you understand the distinction?

atheist: someone who believes nothing created everything
.
FOTH:"Yes, DrTalk I do recognize a straw man argument when I see one. I was merely responding to the one you see above."
.
I didn't mean it as a straw man. I was just being sarcastic.

Dr: Atheism has no dogma, no doctrine, no organized form or higher authority. So it is folly to accuse an Atheist of not understanding atheism. The definition "an atheist is a person who believes nothing created everything" is a construct devised by you to support your arguments. It is the very definition of a straw man argument. An Atheist is a person who does not believe in God. Nothing more, nothing less. Individuals may add or subtract from that basic definition, but it only affects their personal belief system, not the definition of the term. Play fair.

FOTH said: "Billnewbie, please reference the post where I stated either "I know there is no God" or "I believe there is no God". Thank you."
.
You misunderstood what he was saying. He wasn't quoting you, he was merely saying that any atheist couldn't truly say those things.
.
FOTH said: "Billinewbie, there is no such thing as "atheistic faith". That is an oxymoron if there ever was one. Your statement of and belief in that idea indicates a lack in understanding of the very essence of atheism."
.
I provided definitions of atheism, agnosticism, and faith to point out that you are the one fault in your understanding of atheism.
.
So when you said "I'm not one to let misstatements made about me stand" it was you that misunderstood our statements and what we were arguing.

Also, Latin...
Two things you mentioned jump out at me: the first is the fact that you used to word 'destined'. I'm curious what you believe destiny is, and if is a result of God's will, or simply the result of natural inclinations you have as a result of your personality and talents.
The second thing was that you talked about charity and compassion. Do you believe there is a connection between those ideas and religion? Certainly religion depends on charity and compassion, but does the reverse apply? Can a person be charitable and compassionate without God? Does religion make you more or less likely to be charitable and compassionate?

Bill:
"Can an atheist truly say 'I know there is no God'? No, he can only truly say 'I believe there is no God' which is a statement of faith."

Man, you're not helping here. How many times have you said or have heard someone in your congregation say "I KNOW God exists" or something to that effect? Christians have no problem declaring that they have absolute knowledge that God is real, despite that fact that, as you just pointed out, they really don't KNOW, they simply believe, strongly. Why attack a habit that Christians are more often guilty of than Atheists?

DrTalk, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:01 a.m.

"atheist: someone who believes nothing created everything"

Yes, DrTalk I do recognize a straw man argument when I see one. I was merely responding to the one you see above.

And yes, i realize that saying "Bill is going to say", is a straw man argument, but I'm just trying to save some time. If I'm wrong, by all means correct me.

Latin...
Yes, this discussion is grossly off topic from the orginal article. Even the author complained about that fact. The bottom line is that no one really seemed to have anything to add to that discussion, so the thread was allowed to wander where it will. This is not a bad thing- trying to restrict and confine a discussion when so many divergent opinions exist would be. Obviously the very first post was from GF, more or less baiting the rest of us. If we had to restrict our comments to finding our call, then there would be nothing GF could really add (since his belief forecloses the opportunity for God to call him to anything), so there would be no discussion. How sad would that be?

As to your comment about the rapidly increasing pace of life, and general impatience among all of us: I would use a different word, perhaps: urgency. What the source of that urgency is, why so many of us feel it pushing and pulling at us is not a question I could venture to answer, but it is undeniable. I could suggest that we live in the fullness of times, but I think I've exceeded my quota of lunacy for the day, and I'm not ready yet to stand on a street corner holding a sign reading "THE END IS NEAR!!!1!". But I'll be damned if it doesn't feel that way some days.

Dr:
What makes you so certain that God has no beginning, no creator? 'I am the Alpha and the Omega'? 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God...' etc.?
  
Again, it is a question of scope. Bill is going to say that I'm limiting God again, that if God were created by another being, then that being would be the true God. Not so. That being would have nothing to do with us. He did not create us, or our universe, we owe him no allegiance or due. As far as we are concerned, our God is indeed the Alpha and the Omega. For us. But you're making assumptions that aren't guaranteed to be true when you assume that the Bible tells the whole story. It only tells us about the things relevant to us. There is absolutely no reason God could not have been created, by a separate and distinct God. In fact such a reading gives a whole new meaning to 'in the beginning was the word, and the word was God'. Conventional wisdom tells us that "the Word" is Christ. But why be oblique about it then? Why not just say "Christ"? I suggest there may be a different meaning: 'the word' might be more similar to a title or rank. I've already argued that omnipotence is derived from omniscience. Could it not be then that the being we know as God was not always a God? That He grew in his knowledge until He became a God? "Made in God's own image" takes on a much more literal meaning when you consider this possibility.
  

I realize you'll discard my theory as nonsense, accuse me of blasphemy, and suggest I consult with an authority figure you approve of, but I don't see any obvious contradiction with the Bible that would prove me wrong. Show me chapter and verse evidence that what I suggest is impossible according to scripture. I don't care if you believe it; I'm not even saying I believe it. I'm saying prove it wrong. Furthermore, would it matter? Would your faith be affected if you realized that something you believed to be true was fundamentally wrong? Is your faith in your God, your Bible or your Church? Unless God is speaking directly to you, you have to put some (if not most) of your faith in your church. Is that wise?
  

Take a look at some of the deep space photographs taken by Hubble, that seem to show galaxies that number beyond imagination. Now go back to your Bible, where it describes God creating the Earth, and then the heavens above and the seas below. Ask yourself, does this really make sense? Did God really create all this, just to drop us in it so small a part of it? Does all of this really relate to us? Or are we just one of many? If so, might it be that God also is but one of many?

FOTH: "DrTalk, please reference the post where I made any assertion with regard to the universe either having or not having a beginning." Sorry FOTH, There is no straw man, except the one you just created. I never said you made that argument. I was responding to your faulty logic that I was being illogical. Here's is your original quote (March 5th, 10:07 a.m.):
.
"When one asserts the notion that evolution is improbable because no creation so beautiful and complex could possibly have "happened" spontaneously , then one must also apply that same law of causality to the origin of the very thing that one holds responsible for said creation. In other words, if nothing complex and beautiful could simply "happen" and must have been created by some intelligent force, then wouldn't said intelligent force need to be at least as beautiful and complex as the very thing it created? Applying this logic, said creator must have been created by some other intelligent force because nothing so complex and beautiful could have simply "happened"."
.
To which I responded:
No, you're wrong. I already talked about this. Please review my syllogism:
1. Everything WHICH HAS A BEGINNING has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
Since God does not have a beginning, He does not have a cause.
.
Do you understand, fool_on_the_hill?

Sorry for the distraction, latinmami2, but I'm not one to let misstatements made about me stand.

Did your church play any role in your calling to help others?

well i am glad there are a few people who agree that the whole point to this article is about finding your call while others are in a battle of wits on here which i don't think the article was about who can type and sound the smartest

Just for the record...

Billnewbie, please reference the post where I stated either "I know there is no God" or "I believe there is no God". Thank you.

DrTalk, please reference the post where I made any assertion with regard to the universe either having or not having a beginning. Thank you.

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

"Mere unbelief in a personal God is no philosophy at all."
--Albert Einstein
.
Yes, he did say that. I will also say that he was neither a believer nor an atheist.
.
"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being"
--Albert Einstein
.

Can an atheist truly say "I know there is no God"? No, he can only truly say "I believe there is no God" which is a statement of faith. An act of faith is a choice, a choice one makes based not just on evidence and therefore reason but also on emotion, on personal motivations. My contention that most atheists are motivated by a hatred of God, or even just a hatred of the concept of God, is valid in spite of the vigorous protests that result. As I said, the proof is in their arguments. Yes, that hate of God is contradictory to atheism, a contradiction they take great pains to rationalize. Is that psychoanalysis? I can see where they may think so but irrational behavior is a common human trait. Is pointing out those deficiencies an insult? It seems to me that the more one recognizes himself in my contention, the more insult he may well feel.
.
Fool_on_the_hill contends that “The essence of the word "supernatural" means "that which lies beyond all that is real". I contend that the supernatural is that which lies beyond all that we can sense. It seems strange to me that evolutionists and atheists can support the idea that just because we cannot observe the process that brought forth the first life or “the big bang” does not mean it wasn’t real and then turn and deny that the supernatural is real because it cannot be observed. That is yet another example of faith, a chosen faith that evolution is the source of life and that the supernatural is not. Faith is not limited to the realm of the supernatural and reality is not confined by what we can see, hear, touch, taste and smell.
.
MDCCLXXVI as I’ve written before, condemn me for what I write if you must, but not for what I didn’t write. I never stated that atheists need their heads examined nor did I intend such an implication. I claim that they are wrong and that many of their arguments are disingenuous.
.
It’s true that Einstein denied the existence of a personal god, but DrTalk’s quote is accurate, not a lie at all. For a quote to be a lie, there must be some alteration of the text, or there must be a manipulation of the context. DrTalk’s quote of Einstein contains neither and he is owed an apology which I suspect will not be forthcoming.

Webster's definition of agnostic:" one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
.
Webster's definition of atheism:"a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity"
.
So a TRUE atheist is one that doesn't believe in the existence of God. But there is no way to KNOW that the He doesn't exist. It takes FAITH to believe that God doesn't exist just as it takes FAITH to believe that He does exist.
.

gazettefan: "Yes, foolonthehill, DrTalk's "quote is a lie. (Believers are always lying about the beliefs of great scientists.) Here's what Einstein said about belief and the people who lie about him:" (Albert Einstein Quote.)
.
Wrong, gazettefan. Einstein did say exactly what I posted:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quot...
You consider Stephen Jay Gould to be a great scientist, don't you gazettefan? Even Gould knew that Albert Einstein said that. So quit lying.
.
I will concede that Einstein was not a Christian, but I never even said that he was.

fool_on_the_hill: "When one asserts the notion that evolution is improbable because no creation so beautiful and complex could possibly have "happened" spontaneously , then one must also apply that same law of causality to the origin of the very thing that one holds responsible for said creation."
.
No, you're wrong. I already talked about this. Please review my syllogism:
1. Everything WHICH HAS A BEGINNING has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Since God does not have a beginning, He does not have a cause.
.
fool_on_the_hill: "Believers do themselves no service by attempting to apply reason and logic in their efforts to justify their faith to themselves and others. Faith does not require any manner or form of rational justification"
.
Wrong again. According to Webster, faith is: "something that is believed especially with strong conviction." But Christians don't have a blind faith. The evidence points to a Creator.

Agreed, latinmami2. You comments go directly to the heart of the particular topic I am trying to address. Believe it or not, some of us are actually trying our darnedest to maintain focus on an intelligent, enlightening discussion, right MDC, et al?

"atheist: someone who believes nothing created everything" --DrTalk

theist: someone who believes nothing created God.

When one asserts the notion that evolution is improbable because no creation so beautiful and complex could possibly have "happened" spontaneously , then one must also apply that same law of causality to the origin of the very thing that one holds responsible for said creation. In other words, if nothing complex and beautiful could simply "happen" and must have been created by some intelligent force, then wouldn't said intelligent force need to be at least as beautiful and complex as the very thing it created? Applying this logic, said creator must have been created by some other intelligent force because nothing so complex and beautiful could have simply "happened".

Believers do themselves no service by attempting to apply reason and logic in their efforts to justify their faith to themselves and others. Faith does not require any manner or form of rational justification --it simply "is", just like their God. That is the essence of faith. Some folks who profess to have faith need to start learning how to practice it.

Yes, foolonthehill, DrTalk's "quote is a lie. (Believers are always lying about the beliefs of great scientists.) Here's what Einstein said about belief and the people who lie about him:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I don't believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Amen, Al.

latinmami2, good idea. I'm pressed for time now. Be back later.

its is really funny how this article has now turned into a battle of religion when the whole purpose of this article was to have people stop and ask what their calling in life is, whether is be a mom or wife or whatever it is in life that you feel you are destined to do. i would like to see some comments on that, what do all of you feel that you were put here on earth to do. i will answer it as well since i asked the question, i always new i would be a wife and a mother but i have always had compassion in heart for people who have lost their way in life and have always liked to help them get back on their feet in whatever way i can do that.

With regard to Albert Einstein's religious beliefs:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=...

["Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.]

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. " ---Albert Einstein

atheist: someone who believes nothing created everything

"Bring out your theists! Bring out your theists!"

"Here's one for you"

"But I don't believe yet!

Gazettefan, we agree on the concept of atheists forming a group. That might actually make a decent Monty Python bit.

I am not advocating that. I am simply pointing out that the scope of religion and its role in society --not its specific modus operandi which you personally abhor so intensely, merely the function it performs-- encompass far more than the realm of theism, or lack thereof.

I explained the reasons why I am not an iconoclast. I was simply inviting you prove me wrong in that decision. So far, you have help to convince me that I made the right choice.

Billinewbie, there is no such thing as "atheistic faith". That is an oxymoron if there ever was one. Your statement of and belief in that idea indicates a lack in understanding of the very essence of atheism. Since your mind is closed to my words, I suggest you have a chat with someone holding a PhD in Theology and ask them to explain the concept to you. (Incidentally, every time you evoke reason to support your faith, you weaken your own case.)

Reality is the final arbiter of what is and what isn't rational, Billnewbie. An irrational belief is simply one where all known evidence points to the contrary. The essence of the word "supernatural" means "that which lies beyond all that is real". Reason does not apply to the realm of the supernatural. (You may not recognize it, but I am actually doing you a small favor here.)

MDC, you bring up an excellent point that goes to my issue on the moral compass of community. In my own experience, my more deeply ingrained beliefs are those where both of my parents were in complete agreement. Where their individual beliefs happened to diverge, I have felt greater freedom to form my own beliefs and pursue my own course. My most strongly held beliefs are those where every adult authority figure in my greater community spoke with "one mind" while I was growing up.

When the greater community expresses vastly diverse opinions and beliefs, when they do not speak with "one mind", our children are given tacit permission to choose their own paths and develop their own moral codes.

GF: you beat me to the punch: I was about to ask Bill why everyone attempt to psychoanalyze Atheists, assuming that their disbelief is the result of some traumatic experience in their lives? Let’s be fair here: it is you and I, Bill, not they, who choose to believe in something that we cannot see or rationally explain. Doesn’t it seem a bit hypocritical to assume that it is they that need their heads examined?
   
As to the rest of it: I’m not so much perplexed as I think you may just be overstating the case. Every parent uses some form of coercion to direct the will of a child. I can’t honestly say if it causes lifelong damage, or just instills some common sense.
  

I will admit that my greatest struggle, theologically as well as politically, socially and so on is to discern what I actually believe to be rational and true of its own accord, as opposed to what beliefs I hold simply because of my upbringing. Going back to my rationality argument, I constantly wonder if I believe a notion to be rational because it is, or because it makes sense to me because it conforms to what I was taught at my mother’s knee. How do I know if I am in fact rational? What proof can I find that will demonstrate that one ideology is truer than another, when they are equally theoretical? If I reject relativism, then how can I be certain which truths are in fact objective and not simply subjective? Is objectivity even possible for the human mind to ever achieve? It is a dilemma I wrestle with almost every day. I also realize I should find a job that is more mentally taxing, so I have less time to devote to such fruitless exercises.
  

Both of you could afford to lay off the ad hominem attacks and posturing. You both know better, and should realize that such arguments are logically fallacious, demonstrating a weak position.

latinmami2, yes, things seem to be going fast, very fast. We have to make the conscientious effort to just relax and be glad we're alive and to thank humanity for its tender mercies.

;~)

MDC....., I don't understand why you're perplexed about the hell-thing. Telling kids that sort of stuff can't have a good effect on them. It does severe damage to a person's ability to think clearly. And consider the psychotic evangelists who are raking in tons of money preaching that same stuff. It's effect is not healthy for the individual, society, and the world.

And, you must be familiar with the penalty for lack of faith (though-crime) -eternal damnation -not only for kids but for adults too. And the thing about being as guilty for thinking something bad (thought-crime) as you would be if you'd actually done the thing -again, eternal damnation.

billnewbie, in your last several posts you are just making stuff up. They have nothing to do with atheism and me. But such stuff aids you in talking off-point. Congratulations.

PS I don't hate something that doesn't exist and I certainly do not worry about what something that doesn't exist thinks of me. The problem is with people who embrace the personification of irrationality. Your two-bit psychoanalysis is sad.

Yes Gazettefan let’s talk about your conceit. It is conceit to usurp the right to answer for another on such a disingenuous question. I suppose I could have used another word for it, perhaps arrogance, maybe hubris or pomposity, possibly ostentatiousness or imperiousness. Would one of these words suit you better? Are you comforted in your conceit by convincing yourself that I am also conceited and therefore your conceit is justified? I know you reject the notion that you are a moral relativist, but isn’t such a defense just that?
.
So, if I’m a quasi-intellectual then are you saying that what I write resembles the writings of an intellectual? Be careful Gazettefan, that sounds perilously close to a compliment!

I apologize, Latinmami2. My remarks were not aimed at you and I did not make that clear.

who is questioning the existence of god here. i did not see any post that said that, and i believe the article is about people finding their calling and really about people helping other people

The question of the existence of God is by its very nature one that cannot be proven except by God Himself. As I stated below, humans do not have the faculties and therefore do not have the ability to discern through observation conclusively whether God exists. There is evidence but not proof. That is why we live by faith. That is why the atheist also lives by faith in spite of his denials.
.
What is the purpose of contending that God is cruel by the atheist if not because he is torn between his desire to reject the existence of God and his hatred for Him? Humans do not usually make blind choices. That is particularly true of those who value reason. Therefore one must conclude that if a person chooses not to believe in God while also claiming to be rational does so with certain motivations. If an atheist had motivations that do not include revulsion to the concept of God then his argument should reflect that. If an atheist’s motive was compassion, then his argument should also be compassionate especially to those he tries to influence towards adopting his point of view. An atheist might say “there but for the grace of Darwin go I”. Instead we see in nearly every atheist’s argument both contempt for the person they don’t believe in (God) and those who deny the atheistic contentions set forth. After all, when was the last time you saw an atheist get all bent out of shape over the actions of the Greek gods as recorded in ancient myths and fables? They don’t, and why? Because they don’t take those myths and fables seriously nor does hardly anyone believe that gods live on Mt. Olympus. And so the obvious conclusion is that most atheists, if not all, reject God, particularly the God of the bible not because they have no proof of Him but because they disapprove of Him or even more likely because they feel that God disapproves of them.

i had a training class today at my job and one of the things that the trainer said that in today's day and age people no longer want to wait for things, they want everything right now, such as fast food, fast cars, fast money, fast technology, and i think that if people considered living with a little less of these things maybe they would be a little more willing to give. i am far from rich but i do know that i do feel better when i am able to help someone even if it is something small. i think the problem with today's society is everyone is greedy. i am not going to get into a religious battle with anyone because i was not raised in the church so i am not welled versed in the bible but i do know what i believe in from learning on my own and i think the way everyone lives today is not how it was intended to be. Man made things to be the way they are now not god, everything is man made these days, even small towns want to expand and take away the god made land and replace it with man made apartment buildings. if everyone stopped trying to move so fast maybe things would be a lot different

I'll let Bill defend his positions on his own, but I would ask you a couple questions:
  
1: Do you believe that a child is able to comprehend eternal damnation, or that their conception of it is substantially different from "wait till your father gets home"?
  
2: Could you give an example of the "thought-crimes" or acts that are taught by Christians to be sins, but are not against the letter of the law, if not the spirit of the law (I'll give you 'remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy' as a freebie, if you'll concede that it is probably the least honored commandment).
  
3: I take it from your use of quotes that you believe what you refer to as 'thought-crimes' are nonsense. While it is true that, under the law of man there can be no such thing, do you disagree with the underlying notion? Our actions are preceded by our thoughts. Is it not wise to admonish men to police their thoughts and calm their passions?
  
Just curious, really. Like I said, I'll let Bill speak for himself.

MDC...., the problem of children and babies being condemned to hell merely because they don't have the mental capacity to accept Jesus as their lord and savior is aside right now. (Though that issue is still a burning one -if you'll pardon the simile.)

What I'm really focusing on now is that clergy and parents teach so-called christian children that thought-crime and bad deeds (not crime and bad deeds by law but by the claims of scripture and doctrine) will cause the children, at some point, to suffer eternal torture in hell.

Whether other religions teach this is irrelevant. The questions is: are children being told this? If so, then it's child abuse. Especially since none of the "thought-crime" and only some of the deeds are illegal or wrongs against society. It's the idea of eternal torture in hell being put into the minds of children that I'm talking about.

billnewbie's meandering off into quasi-intellectual blather in avoidance of this issue is evidence that reason and faith are antithetical. Though he outrageously claims that those things are complimentary.

GF: I hate to agree with bill about anything, but I have to admit that I don't understand your question to him:
"Do clergy and parents compel 'Christian' children to believe that they might spend an eternity being tortured in hell?"
I didn't say anything because I didn't want to speak for him, but I simply don't understand the question. It feels like a trick question: the obvious answer would be yes, but the obvious response would be 'anyone who would condemn a child to hell is evil', which would hardly be debatable. Christian's of all ages are taught that they could go to hell, should they (insert conditions here). You can make the case even more broadly that all religions teach that there is an afterlife, and our condition in that afterlife is related to our actions in this life. Whether it be the promise of 72 virgins, the threat of hell, the chance to be reborn into a higher caste or as a lower life form, one of the fundamental functions of religion is to affect behavior now on the premise that there will be cosmic consequences later. So I'm not sure what your specific question means.

If you're referring to the fact that many Christians believe that a child, although they are not capable of sin, might be judged by God and damned, the answer should be clear: they are wrong. I hate to quote scripture, but since your question is about what Christians believe, then Christ himself said "Whoever welcomes a child like this in my name welcomes me. Whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me...[a]nd whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea" Mark 9:37-42
That seems fairly unambiguous to me.
The notion that a child might be damned by original sin is one we have discussed before, and one that I (and I believe Bill) reject. I realize that original sin is an established belief, but it is one that seems to be loosing ground. The scriptures that seem to support it are easily misunderstood. I believe sin entered the world through Adam, and that since none of us is perfect we all will, at some point, commit sin in our lives, but we are not cursed by the sins of Adam. We take care of that on our own.
Consider it another way: the 'original' sin was not disobedience. Adam and Eve were already not being obedient by failing to follow the separate commandment to go forth and replenish the earth. Adam and Eve were forced to leave the Garden because they had eaten from the tree of Knowledge, giving them the ability to discern between good and evil. Having that knowledge, they were thus able to sin (and consequently did). Prior to that, they were innocent, like children, incapable of sin and able to reside with God. It is clear that God does not consider sin to be possible without the ability to discern right from wrong. Following that logic, then, a child is without sin and cannot be condemned to hell.

Wow, DonDiego, many thanks. Maybe billnewbie will make a better effort to grasp your and my reasoning from your words -he automatically goes into a non-comprehensive mode when he reads my stuff.

And, billnewbie, talk about conceit, I respond to your words (and not so much you in particular) because those words widely represent the poor thinking of believers.

As for your post previous to your last one: "reason and faith are not antithetical but are complimentary", WOW! Read DonDiego's post again.

For example: There is nothing about 'creationism' and 'intelligent design' that is complimentary to evolution. Indeed, creationism and intelligent design are an insult to the monumental human accomplishment that is the theory of evolution and to the human intellect in general.

The problem is: believers just see reasoning as a bunch of words, so, in retaliation they just toss a bunch of words back at the reasoning as though those words carry a weight equal to the reasoning. The telling thing about this is that they are revealing that they are victims of a bunch words devoid of all reasoning -scripture.

billnewbie, you could do your cause a big favor by denying that clergy and parents teach children that they stand a chance of being eternally tortured in hell, but you won't.

Bill-The burden of proof is not on atheists to prove there is no god, but on you to prove that there is. Without concrete proof of the existence of a god, then the default position is agnosticism. The atheists says there is no proof so I do not believe. The believer says there is no proof yet I believe (faith). Logic falls on the side of the non-believer.
-
GF has taken some pot shots, perhaps uncalled for, at you and you at him. But he is not the one who claims to live by the word. As I am sure you well know, a soft answer turns away wrath.
-
What kind of cruel god gives humans the gift of science and reasoning then says to believe in him you need to ignore them? No different than the fable of creation and the tree. Here's some nice, tasty fruit but don't eat it. Then he is going to punish those who don't believe? Sounds a bit like a sadist, not the loving god you make him out to be.
-
You have completely misunderstood GF. He is not saying that god is cruel then god doesn't exist, thus contradicting himself. He is saying IF god exists then he is one cruel SOB.

It’s flattering to know that I have impressed myself into Gazettefan’s consciousness so deeply as it seems that nary a day goes by that he doesn’t refer to me in one way or another.
.
I also see that Gazettefan has taken it upon himself to provide answers for me to his cynical questions. Gazettefan, don’t you think that exhibits an inordinate amount of conceit? As I told you before Gazettefan, I only answer serious questions from serious questioners, and your latest question does not qualify.
.
But the sardonic question you ask does reveal something about yourself, Gazettefan. It reveals the schizophrenic nature of your crusade. On one hand you condemn God as cruel, evil, unjust and without compassion. You berate those who have faith in Him as unintelligent, foolish, mentally defective and even mentally ill. Then you turn, on a dime so to speak, and claim God does not exist. Yet you cannot make any kind of defense of that claim without bringing up your assessment of the deficiencies in God’s character. One can sum up your arguments into the following statement, “God doesn’t exist and I hate Him”.
.
I can see why I frustrate you so as you can make no headway against my faith with such contradictory arguments.

callit..., I'm glad you're getting some pleasure out of this. What ever you are, I can tell you didn't give the posts here a good read. Nothing I've said is really out of place. And, again, your hostility makes no sense in light of the content of your post. Chime in on the subject and let's hear what you think. By the way, welcome to gazetteXtra.

foolonthehell, I keep forgetting to mention that I'm not a member of any atheistic group; and to foresee atheists necessarily manifesting themselves in group form is a matter of applying an old model to a relatively new thing. Being free-thinkers may necessarily preclude the group thing. In a way, though, non-believers are pretty much like believers, we basically live each day without giving the crazy stuff much thought.

I foresee fellowship groups forming though. Composed of believers and non-believers.

It's a mistake to judge atheism and atheists by how atheism and atheists are manifested in group form. Remember that a great psycho-dynamic of religion is tribalism which now shows itself as religions and religious factions -and frictions between these groups has been a constant threat to world peace. Maybe you should look more for what atheists aren't doing than what they are doing.

The fact is that human reason is flawed, MDCCLXXVI and Fool_on_the_hill. It is flawed because it is limited by the sum of its experiences. Even collectively, humankind has not the range of senses or experiences to completely comprehend the world we live in let alone the universe much less the Creator of all. I realize that you believe that God is wholly contained within the universe and therefore subject to its immutable laws, as if He were contained within a box which is different from what I believe, that He created “the box” and that therefore He could not be confined within it, but no matter how “big” God actually is I think we can agree that He is nothing like any creature that has ever been observed and that therefore His various attributes and their limits if any are impossible to gage. So while we speculate about whether one must suspend reason to have faith or to suspend faith to have reason, in the final analysis neither reason nor faith are reliable independent of each other. If one relies on faith he must have reasons that validate that faith. Conversely, if one relies on reason one must have faith, faith that validates reason.
.
My conclusion therefore is that faith and reason are not antithetical but that they are complimentary. It is also my conclusion that we, from our perspective cannot adequately or accurately define or fully understand God anymore than we can completely understand a singularity or even “simple” gravity as we are limited in our reason by what we can observe. Since our senses limit our perceptions the cruelty, the capriciousness, that some attribute to God are just that, perceptions. When you factor in the personal biases that we all have to some degree or another it is no surprise that people such as the aforementioned George Smith and even Gazettefan come to the conclusion that faith and reason are antithetical. It seems clear to me that what they really mean is that religious faith and reason are antithetical but atheistic faith and reason are not though even they recognize the contradiction in that as they go to great lengths to avoid acknowledging their faith and do so only grudgingly.

To summarize my previous posts... as a social movement, atheism has a truly lousy marketing strategy.

Thank you MDCCLXXVI, Gazettefan and CallitasIseeit. Your expansions on my point were excellent, MDC and GF!

MDC, we are very close to concurrence except that I reject mysticism as irrational. I prefer substituting something capable of serving the function we currently assign to the realm of mysticism. As suggested by GF, art and knowledge hold some promise there. I personally experience a profound sense of spiritual satisfaction from the epiphanies of evolution --where beauty and logic are one. Beautifully logical and logically beautiful all at once. That is a wonderful experience regardless of who or what one believes to be pulling the strings of its mechanism.

Of course, none of this substitutes an actual street address for providing the aforementioned social byproducts of religion. Missionaries were wildly successful at spreading Christianity across the globe because they offered far more than just a rough draft. I don't think they would have been nearly as successful if they had simply said, "You aborigines with your sun gods and barbaric rituals are idiots! Now, knock off that nonsense and carry on..."

As an agnostic I take offense to your post and laugh at your perceptions of who I am.

callit...., do you have any idea how self-condemning your post is?

Any one or any thing that threatens children with an eternity of torture in hell gets no free pass from me. And I am not duped by the flimsy intellectual pretenses that attempt to insulate us from the horrors of religion. Read your bible.

And practice what you preach!!!

The first half of the paper, however, was surprisingly honest and level-headed. It was refreshing to find a preacher (at least I think he was a preacher- he mentioned something like that in passing) who is not in complete denial about the conflict that exists, nor did he automatically default to the established precepts of religion as being the truth. I found his comments regarding the fact that there are beliefs taken from the Bible that should be considered more likely to be correct than others spot on.
We, as a community, are far too complacent in our willingness to accept another person's interpretation of the Bible to be true without question. Science is constantly evaluating it's own conclusions, and revising them when they are found wanting. Religion ought to be no different. Our scientific understanding of the universe is constantly changing and growing. The universe, however, is more or less static. We may discover new properties, but they were already there before we found them. Why then should religion be any different? Just because the Bible (and God) are unchanging, does not mean that our understanding of them is in any way complete.
I applaud the author for trying to honestly evaluate the questions at face value rather than simply cherry picking science for evidence that supports a forgone conclusion, as is the habit of so many in the evolution vs creation debate.

Dr:
I read most of the paper you linked; I found nothing that I disagreed with or objected to until, about half way through, the author states:
  
"The two hypotheses to be compared are (1) the claim that God has created us in such a way that (a) all of contemporary plants and animals are related by common ancestry, and (b) the mechanism driving evolution is natural selection working on random genetic variation and (2) the claim that God created mankind as well as many kinds of plants and animals separately and specially, in such a way that the thesis of common ancestry is false."
  
hypotheses 1 has two parts, a and b, which in my estimation are not co-dependent. There is no reason, scientifically or theologically that we can not hold a to be true but b to be false.
  
I suggest there is a third, and in my estimation more likely possibility: that 1a is true (as scientific evidence seems to suggest), but that the changes were not random at all; that intelligent design guided these changes and in fact this is the very essence of how God created life.
  
We need not even dismiss 1 b as completely false, since natural selection is an observable phenomenon. The fact that it takes place, however, does not imply that it is the driving force behind evolution. It is a natural process, but not one that we must depend upon to explain evolution (unless we are determined that there is no God, in which case it is absolutely necessary).
  
Thus all conflicts are neatly dealt with. Life was and is created by God, but using natural and observable processes.
  
To the natural question that follows of 'what then is the difference between your God and no God at all', the answer is in design. Your author wrestles with 'chicken and egg' questions, such as how the eye, and all the complimentary subsystems required for the eye to function could have possibly evolved at random; why one system would evolve without need for it, or how the dependent system could evolve without the first system first being in place.
  
These questions go away, however, if we embrace intelligent and purposeful design guiding evolution. This is why and how I suggested in a much earlier post that I see no contradiction between evolution and creation. They are both half explanations for the same process.
  
We should be careful to separate the factual findings of science and the speculative reasoning of science. By holding 1 b to be true, you are allowing pure evolutionists to set the parameters of your arguments. It is no wonder, then, that the author struggles so much in the second half of the paper. Obviously I disagreed more and more as the paper went on (I admit I didn't finish reading it all)

I didn't read all 341 posts but there is some excellent writing here especially from MCMMLXXVI and Fool on the hill.

As for the Gazettefan, if you could curtail the cheap shots and cruel stabs at anything religious some of us would probably put you on the same level of poster as MCMMLXXVI and fool on the hill. But the fact is you cannot hide that you were somehow wronged in the past and that you will continue to spit venom whenever you can. It greatly lessens the impact of your posts for christian and atheist alike.

MDC.... and fooonthehill, great posts. The kind that really make for an intelligent debate re: this subject. Unlike the non-responsive, diversive stuff from someone who will go nameless, but whose initials are: billnewbie.

The most important question in your posts is: what will fill the the absence of an absent god? (Actually god is and always was absent. We are talking about the absence of the belief in god.)

The answer to the question is the very reason the arts and education (true education) have flourished within the human experience. The pleasure of the emotional and intellectual fulfillment that comes from the arts and education is transcendent. Not transcendent in the supernatural sense but transcendent in the sense that the practice of art and education (whether one is the artist or the educator or the patron of the arts or the student) elevates us beyond the animal half or our being.

Recall the feeling from reading a great novel or the sensation that comes from learning a profound truth (non-religious) about the physical universe. The incite that the author brings to a great novel leaves us more in touch with our fellow human beings than anything we've ever read in scripture. The epiphany involved in understanding evolution brings to us an enlightenment infinitely superior to the dark, stultifying, fear-filled, violent content of scripture.

In a better world the kind of transcendence I'm talking about would supplant the fake, delusional "transcendence" that is claimed to come from god, religion, and scripture.

The best defense for god, religion, and scripture as the source of morality would be: 'sure, way back when, those things were really crazy. (Putting aside, for now, the American Taliban and Islam etc.) But now things aren't so bad with religious belief and practice. It's all pleasant and positive now.'

That the morality of religion has improved is proof that morality comes from outside of religion -therefore morality is atheistic. There is nothing within religion that officially renders the horror of scripture as null and void. Humanity had to step outside of god, religion, and scripture to demand that change. But, the horror is still lurking there. It is not yet resolved. That's why billnewbie can't respond to the question:

Do clergy and parents compel 'christian' children to believe that they might spend an eternity being tortured in hell?

I highly recommend reading "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible" by Alvin Plantinga.
.
You can read it here: http://www.asa3.org/aSA/dialogues/Faith-...

FOTH, you’ve nailed it. Reason and faith, as framed by apostolic Christianity are irreconcilable. In that context I agree, Atheism is the only reasonable conclusion. If we reject faith, then there is no God. If we reject reason, then we cannot trust our own senses, and this world is an artificial construct imposed by an arbitrary and cruel God. Since God is allegedly neither arbitrary nor cruel, we must reject faith and embrace reason.
  
I would argue that this conflict is not axiomatic and can be resolved, however, if we reevaluate our preconceptions about the nature of God. If we accept that the notion of omnipotence has context then we can define God in a way that is not in opposition to reason. I think I’ve argued this point extensively in previous posts, however, and won’t beat a dead horse.
  

With regard to your second question, I would extend your hypothesis: I believe almost no one attends church to worship. I think most religious people recognize the fact that worship is an activity that can be conducted anywhere at any time. Worship ought to be a state of mind and being, not an activity reserved for Sunday mornings. Believers who do not recognize this fact don’t have a very good grasp on religion in general. You’re correct: churches fill a variety of social and personal voids. I share your curiosity as to how an Atheist would propose those voids be filled in the absence of religion. Even if the more pedestrian needs such as fellowship, community and economic support were met by some other institution, it seems obvious that some form of mysticism is an inescapable part of the human condition. Every society known to man has, at some point in its lifecycle, created deities. Humans seem to know instinctively that a power greater than themselves exists and is active in the universe. Even atheistic societies have failed to truly eradicate this instinct; they simply redirect it to their own ends.
  
I wonder if it is even possible to eliminate religion at all. Religion, in theory, could prove its case beyond doubt: they need only produce God, in person. Atheism, however, is by definition unprovable. No matter the evidence shown to discredit the claims of religion, religion will always be able to simply redefine its own parameters in order to coexist with science.
  

So what of it, GF? If there is no God and religion is a scourge that ought to be eradicated from the Earth, how do you intend to fill the undeniable void that would be left, both personally and socially, and do you believe it is possible to systematically eliminate religion?

Thanks for addressing my question, 1776. Your analysis is inspired and I agree with some of your conclusions. The common theme of your post seems to be the conflict between between reason and faith. The book, "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George Smith, was pivotal in my understanding that relationship. In short, reason and faith are unequivocally antithetical and any attempt to reconcile the two will guarantee an endless exercise in circular logic. One must choose one or the other. I consider this to be axiomatic.

Regarding my questions, I had asked them specifically of Gazettefan because I am genuinely interested in hearing his opinion, partly due to his role as "most favored iconoclast". My curiosity stems from being the antithesis of an iconoclast, to the extreme of having raised children with an almost totally laissez faire approach to the subject of religion or absence thereof. Basically, I'll answer questions. This also defines my relationships with people of many religions and denominations. Maybe my questions were unclear or maybe an iconoclast would simply rather not go there. I have nothing against iconoclasts. In fact, Gazettefan's sardonic zingers provide me with a seemingly endless supply of smirks and even a few hearty guffaws. I just have no personal desire or interest in being one myself, in part because I see deity worship as being only a small part of the role that religion plays in modern society.

Though I doubt many folks would likely admit to it, my personal opinion is that only a small percentage of churchgoers attend primarily to worship. I believe most folks attend church today primarily for a variety of other valid rational purposes: community; fellowship; haven from an increasingly immoral society; practical role models for their children; the lessons in the sermons; spiritual inspiration; emotional support; and so on. (There are also other less valid reasons.) To suggest that it is impossible to extract those perks without being simultaneously overwhelmed by the terror of fire and brimstone in the process is to grossly underestimate the human capacity for denial and rationalization. It's really not that difficult to keep the baby and throw out only the bath water.

Returning to the essence of my questions... in the atheist's ideal world, where reason reigns supreme and there are no more churches, exactly where did the iconoclast redirect all of those people? I'm not interested in some hypothetical abstract deflection. Let's say I am holding a street map of Janesville. What is the address?

Pascal, the mathematician? I'm familiar with his contributions to mathematics, of course, but was unaware he was a religious thinker. Just did a little reading on him- one of the great tragedies of the modern age is that it is no longer possible to be a true Renaissance man. There is just too much knowledge for any one person to consume today.
Interesting man, thank you for pointing him out to me.

MDC...., the first paragraph of your next to last post had me worried, but the rest of that post and the next one are brilliant. (But only if your mention of god is in the hypothetical.)

By the way, the "believing just in case" thing is referred to as 'Pasquale's wager'. Blais Pasquale first voiced that idea. Of course you and other people with brains can figure out that god would not be fooled by that gambit and might indeed be highly po'ed and could possibly go into Job-mode with some serious torture for such impious connivance. And, of course, a benevolent god would rather allow into heaven a nonbeliever who led a decent, kind life over one who was a believer but led a lousy life. Wouldn't he?

billnewbie, lately I've been thinking about commenting on how humorless you are. But your last post has me putting my comment on hold. It was a real hoot. In addition, your post gives validity to the complaint that the Bard's work is overrated: it's full of cliches.

;~)

Now your lack of response to certain question demands that I state your de facto concession:

Clergy and parents compel "christian" children to believe that there is a possibility that they will spend an eternity being tortured in hell.

Finally, the underlying assumption that the net good outweighs the net harm is contentious at best. Even if we assume that there are a significant number of people who are ‘kept in line’ by religion, the damage done by religion is undeniable. I said in an earlier post that no war has ever been fought for any reason other than control of resources (money/power). I stand by that argument. Having said that, however, I will concede that few people would get in line to die for their nation if the case were made to them so callously.
Leaders require levers to motivate their followers. We have seen men lead by charisma, by fear and hatred of people unlike themselves, by fear of an ideology (such as communism) that threatens their way of life, by enticement of riches, land, and women. Men fight to protect their lives, their homes, their families and their nation. None of these, however, is as effective as getting men to fight in the name of God. Only the promise of rewards unattainable in this life could compel a man to blow himself up.
 
Great evil has been done by men who believed they were lifting themselves and their victims up in the eyes of God. Not all acts of evil or crimes of war can be attributed to religion. But only religion can compel men who were not evil to begin with to disregard their natural compassion and respect for life.
 
No, you cannot argue that religion is a greater force of good than evil. You can only argue that it is the most powerful force on Earth. This is all the more reason then that we cannot simply be satisfied with coexistence. We cannot simply say that truth is in the mind of the beholder, and that one man’s truth is just as valid as another’s. We must actively seek out truth, embracing what we find to be virtuous, exposing and denouncing what we find to be false.
 
Regarding the second argument, suggesting that God is the safer bet. This would be a comforting belief, were it true. If I did not believe in my heart that there was a God, but went through the motions of religion on the off chance that I was wrong, I would be worse off than if I actively denounced God. Scripture confirms this: God’s greatest contempt is reserved for those who are lukewarm in their belief. God has no time or patience for fence-sitters.
 
If you are unsure of your beliefs (which any sane person should be: true, absolute, unquestioning faith is the domain of the mad), then be honest with yourself. Question yourself, your teachers and your God. No one ever had truth simply handed to them. God will not punish you for asking Him sincerely for wisdom and understanding, nor will He punish you for being wrong. He will, however, spit you out if your apathetic, wishy-washy, and without conviction in your beliefs.

I’d like to go back to something FOTH said: “Would you agree that some folks need religious belief or some reasonable facsimile?” There are two arguments that get made in this sort of conversation that both fall under the category of ‘hail marry’ (in the football sense, not the religious sense) defense of religion. The first is that even if God does not exist, the net benefit to society from religion is outweighed by the net harm. The second is that even if one is agnostic about the existence of God, they are better off hedging their bets by assuming there is a God. If God exists, then they did the right thing. If He does not, then they haven’t really given up anything by living virtuously. Both arguments should be abandoned.

The first argument is one that I have made myself in the past. Having given it more thought, I realize that there are several flaws in it. First, we assume that people in general would behave badly were it not for the fear of God. We see, however, that this fear is not nearly as effective as a deterrent as we would like to believe. An overwhelming majority of the prison population believe fervently in God. The reason that individuals who profess a belief in God can still commit crimes is that they are able to rationalize their actions.

This ability to justify to themselves actions that are criminal is related to religion. Far too many religions force believers to deny reason in favor of belief. This is the inherent danger of irrational religion, and the reason that I keep insisting that any true religion must be rational, and that God Himself is above all else a rational being. Not being able to understand something does not mean that it must be magic. When we train our minds to accept irrationality on blind faith, when we engage in meaningless ritual and pervert the meaning of language to fit a contrived version of reality that conforms to our preconceptions, we are learning how to be criminals.

Faith is central to religion. But faith must never be at odds with reason. I readily admit that many of my own convictions stretch reason to the breaking point, but never, at least in my mind, beyond. The moment I abandon reason because it is at odds with what I am told to be the word and will of God, I have set out on the path to madness and corruption of the soul.

The second reason this argument is flawed is that it unintentionally exposes the true nature of the person making the argument. All people assume that their peers will behave more or less the same way they would behave in a given situation. An honest man will expect others to be honest; a dishonest man will not trust others. To state that other people would behave badly without the fear of God implies that the person making the argument would behave badly were it not for their faith. This may not be an indictment of religion in general, but it does not reflect well on the arguer.

I had considered posting the following Shakespearean quote without comment,
“I pray thee cease thy counsel,
Which falls into mine ears as profitless
as water in a sieve.”
But nay, I am able to suffer the slings and arrows of Gazettefan’s outrageousness as he casts about for one that can wound me till I yet come to that undiscovered country of which I bear hope but of which Gazettefan needs bear great courage to control his dread. That he’s angry, 'tis true, 'tis true 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true—a foolish figure who thumps his own chest and bangs his own gong while casting aspersions hither and yon taking aim at hope with his not so trusty bow. Cry havoc and loose the dogs of war Gazettefan for I carry the shield of faith, wherewith I shall be able to quench all your fiery darts.
,
Shakepeare is such a wealth of resourses! I never tire of it.

Congratulations, billnewbie, that's not a bad way to put it. This whole thing sums up the religion debate nicely. Religion is nonsensical and therefore dangerous. It is the duty of clear-thinking people to persist in challenging and exposing religion.

Your contribution to exposing the nonsense of religion, as usual, shows that any defense of religion is, at best, flimsy, therefore you again choose to ignore it.

You wouldn't want to be tricked into stating that you teach religion by putting the threat of the eternal damnation of hell into the minds of children.

3 Gazettefan responses to just 1 post. I must write some really thought provoking nonsense!

billnewbie, your diversion suffers from your being told what to read and what to believe in college. And no matter how you have been told to interpret Shakespeare and Hamlet, none of it leaves any proof of god. Why don't you use scripture as proof? or even personal experience?

By the way, I've answered all questions, unless I've missed some when offline. It is you who are dodging because there is nothing you can rely on to support your stance.

Thanks, billnewbie, but it's fine with me if gazettefan chooses to lay down his king and stand up. That's the honorable thing to do when all possible moves lead to checkmate.

Bill, that was a studied and well written response. I admit that the last line "And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?" was always confusing to me. I have always read it as a statement of his mental and emotional state; he knows there is beauty and wonder in the world and in man, but it is beyond his grasp because he is corrupted. I never considered it might be sarcastic. I'm not convinced, but I won't dismiss the possibility your interpretation is correct.

By the way, billnewbie, why do you respond to my stuff?

billnewbie, methinks you miss the whole point in regard to religion and god and the crazy goings-on in those plays: An omnipotent god lets all the violence happen -that is if there is a god. The behavior of the characters is a bad bi-product of free will and our primal instincts as is the "god-sanctioned" brutality and murder that haunts scripture. Free will is the ecce signum that god doesn't exist. Unless, of course, he exists to watch good theater.

Whether they have religion or not, humans do bad things to each other. But people doing bad things to each other is much more prevalent when they have the sanction of god and religion. No human creation sanctions violence more than religion does.

If I'm so buried in nonsense, why does Gazettefan continue to respond to my twaddle? After all, he's written that about me more than once. Gazettefan dost protest too much, methinks.
.
His complains that I won’t answer his questions is hilarious considering the source. Don’t you owe a few answers or responses to reasonable points from some of the posters below, Gazettefan? When Gazettefan makes an outrageous claim posed as a question, does he have a reasonable expectation to an answer? I think not.

MDCCLXXVI, when you consider that Hamlet was tormented as the result of the immorality of his uncle and what he thought was the complicity of his mother in the murder of his father, then the moral of the play clearly becomes a study of the subsidiary unintended effects of immorality. Hamlet's uncle wanted to be King and he wanted his brother's wife. So he murdered his brother, became King, married Hamlet's mother and through his immorality, indirectly destroyed just about everyone else around him illustrating those subsidiary effects of the evil people do. Hamlet didn’t choose not to commit suicide for lack of courage though he clearly was contemplating it in his Soliloquy, he refrained because he had other things to do. But even before the visit from his father’s ghost Hamlet had considered and rejected suicide when he said,
“O, that this too too solid flesh would melt
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!
Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God! God!” Act 1 scene 2
Shakespeare’s plays were usually studies in morality. Hamlet seems to respect the perceived ordnances of God regarding suicide and by proxy one could assume as much about Shakespeare. One could draw a similar conclusion about Macbeth being a study in morality in that Lady Macbeth was eager for Macbeth to kill the king and take the throne yet when it was accomplished, her complicity and the guilt brought forth from her conscience drove her to madness.
.
I would disagree with you about Hamlet’s dialogue where you begin with “What a piece of work is man”. That was a sarcastic description, not humanistic at all. He was disgusted with the apparent lack of nobility, of the lack of morality of humanity, it’s propensity for deception and even the murder of one’s brother.

billnewbie, you are buried in your nonsense.

Morality doesn't come from god or the bible. It comes from people and because it doesn't come from god or the bible, morality is inherently atheistic. My only complaint about taking digs from you is that you do so only in order to avoid answering reasonable questions or reasonable points. Tell me about the morality of a god and scripture that insists that slavery is okay.

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

MDC, there is nothing equivocal about god and scripture owning up to the "goodness" of slavery. And, ritual is not required to read the bible.

Yes, Shakespeare was an humanist. Believers believe that humanism is the enemy of religion. This belief emphasizes the misanthropy of religion.

Yes, I would also regard Hamlet, the character, as an existentialist. Which I would also say is a fair description of Shakespeare. (Try writing a play or a novel while leaving yourself out of it!!!)

Have you noticed the difference in the dialogue when a poster responds to another poster point-for-point? -like the posts between you and me? -compared to some other people who only sidestep the important issues with neurotic tangents and self-defeating citations and quotes?

Interesting rationalization Gazettefan, but if your contention that atheists are more moral than Christians were suspected by some to be true, your callousness about the effects of your bombasts most likely would settle the question. Still I appreciate that you don't deny the purpose of your contentions. I'm sure you can rationalize your contemptuous assaults on the sensibilities of your "misguided" fellow humans as an effort made for their own good as perceived by you beyond your assertion that if they can't stand the heat they should stay out of the kitchen, a strange defense from one who complains so often about my "heat".

Better yet, consider the "to be or not to be" soliloquy also in Hamlet (Act III, scene i). This is not only the defining passage of the play, it may be the most famous of all his works and arguably of the entire English language. What of it then? In it, Hamlet, who has all but given up his fragile hold on sanity, critically and candidly weighs the choice between life in a cruel and unjust world and suicide. He describes a litany of reasons this life is unbearable, and first concludes that "’tis a consummation; Devoutly to be wish’d."
Note the religious undercurrent in the word "devoutly". He then realizes there is a rub: the afterlife. "What dreams may come...[m]ust give us pause". He finally concludes that, despite the many hardships brought on by long life, they are made bearable by the fear of "The undiscover’d country"
.
There are a few things of note here. First, the after life is described in no more specific terms than the "dreams" of immortal sleep. There is no mention of heaven or hell, damnation or glory. Only uncertain dreams.
Secondly, there is no discussion of the merit of living piously (in fact the pious are frequently the subjects of mockery in Shakespeare's works). In fact, he rejects morality outright:“there’s the respect that makes calamity of so long life...conscience does make cowards of us all ...thus the native hue of resolution; Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought.” Man refrains from the ultimate sin of suicide only out of rational fear of the unknown, and the unknowable; conscience is merely a ruse. It is ultimately cowardice that motivates man.

The slavery angle is just more evidence that scripture can be twisted to validate virtually any belief. An equally compelling argument can be made from scripture in opposition of slavery as it can be to support slavery. This is simply more evidence that Scripture cannot be treated as ordinary text. Without prayer and divine inspiration, scripture is confusing at best, and likely to lead to trouble and danger. The process of reading scripture involves a minimum of 3 steps:
pray for understanding.
read
listen.
.
Skip any step, and you're not only not going to get everything out of the experience, you're just as likely to get false information from it.
.
re. Shakespeare: anyone who has read Hamlet should suspect he was a humanist. Take, for example, act II, scene II:
.
"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?"
.
As an aside, it is interesting here that Shakespeare compares man to an angel in action, but to a god in apprehension (understanding). The meaning here is that Hamlet gives man greater credit for his comprehension of the universe than for his ability to act upon or within it. Granted, this is only the perspective of Hamlet, who spends a great deal more time and energy apprehending than acting, but it is still interesting.
.
As GF has noted, however, one has to be careful when reading fiction: we can't simply take quotes from Shakespeare's texts to necessarily be a true reflection of what he actually believed. The above quote is how he chose to write the character of Hamlet who was a tragic hero (by definition meaning a character who is the protagonist, but has at least one fatal flaw). We can only really speak about what Shakespeare believed by stepping back and looking at the themes and motifs in his entire body of works.
Such an investigation suggests that he was likely a humanist; if he were a deist he was more interested in man's relations with his fellow man than with his god.

billnewbie, it seems like your faith isn't sustaining you and the people you speak for. How can this be? You and the others walk with an almighty being which should make all of you impervious to the give-and-take of reasonable debate.

And, by the way, that future of eternal bliss should help sustain you in the presence of mere dot marks on a computer screen.

Ultimately, if you engage in debate, you should be able to endure the opposition.

Refute the allegation that scripture and belief in god didn't give aid and comfort to the Confederacy in its institutionalized slavery of human beings including children and babies. Remember Twain?

And stop with your newest dodge about hurt feelings.

No more than yours, Gazettefan. I think that whether Twain's or your statements for that matter are blasphemy isn't really the question. The real question is - is blasphemy sin? For me it is but not for you or Twain. For you and for Twain as well to a lesser degree, your real sin is much more basic than that. You use blasphemy not as an effort to defame God who you usually deny practically within the same statement, but as a way to insult and degrade the religious. In short, you blaspheme to be hurtful to your fellow humans both for the joy of doing so and to inflate your own ego which completely destroys your superior morality claims you make for yourself and for the atheistic movement as well. So don’t be too concerned about blasphemy, the motivations of the blasphemous are much more harmful both for the true targets of that blasphemy but also for the welfare of the blasphemous than the actual blasphemy could ever be.

By the way, billnewbie, are you saying that Twain's remarks aren't blasphemy?

That Twain had some interest in religion in his early life (that church was constructed when he was in his twenties) explains why he was anti-religion in the last half of his life. He knew what it was all about.

Twain was not mildly against religion, it was a lot worst than that -kid yourself all you want. His hostile remarks about religion cannot be reconciled with a claim that those remarks don't represent his real opinion.

Twain was very anti-slavery. The Confederacy took its sanction for slavery from the bible.

Oh yes, Gazettefan, your graciousness is on display for all to see.
.
RUSerious, it looks like Mark Twain did not always accurately portray his true thoughts in his writings. That is often a typical human trait. What a person says about himself publicly or even about others is not always reliable. Usually people overstate the claims they make of themselves while understating those they make of others particularly in comparison. I suspect that Twain, being a humorist and a cynic, expressed his anti-Christian views as a tool of his trade but his actions when more anonymous as when he supported the construction of that church in Nevada could be quite contradictory to his public stances. Obviously what a person says about himself doesn’t always correlate with what he does. Still I’m sure that Twain was an anti-Christian at least as it is represented by established Christian organizations, but was he an atheist? I doubt it but from our perspective that is impossible to know.

Bed and breakfast.

bilnewbie, I've shown grace and you have shown none. All you've shown with this grace-business is that it's easier for you to talk off the point than it is for you to defend your oddball beliefs.

Re: religion in Shakespeare. Religion in Shakespeare has nothing to do with endorsing religion. It is only mentioned as something that is unsatisfyingly grappled with as part of the human experience. If there was anything consistent with scripture in a positive way (positive in the minds of believers), Shakespeare's work wouldn't be considered great literature. (The two are mutually exclusive.) His work is comprehensive about the human experience. Scripture is a narrow, suffocating, psychotic rendition of the fears of ancient, ignorant humans.

Twain is angry enough about religion for you to run fast and run far from him. As for his spot-on critical wit, he's at his best when he's trashing religion. Your use of his quotes are easily turned on you. You must not have a grasp on the psychological defense mechanism of projection. Many of Twain's quotes reveal that believers are only projecting their own neurotic and primal fears on others.

Hey, you two-can I just interject a question here? How could I help but think of this very conversation when I ran across this story while I was reading some news? The timing of the story fit perfectly with your discussion re: Mark Twain.
Briefly: Mark Twain had something to do with the building of a church in his early years. The church (congregation) now needs to expand its facilities, but the city wouldn't let them because of the historical nature of this church. The city bargains to help the church build on an adjacent property to meet their needs, while keeping the historical building intact. A group devoted to separation of church/state is fighting it.
How do either of you see it? Really, just curious; I thought it posed an interesting variation from the "normal" arguments.
Gazettefan, I know you don't take reading assignments, but my version was sketchy. In case you are interested in my question, the story is, among other places, here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5028...

So, Sir Grace says his error is meaningless and besides, he perceives that I have no grace so therefore he's justified in his gracelessness. I expected as much.
.
One would have a difficult time believing that there is no religion in Shakespeare's work by reading them except through Gazettefan's prism. But if he says so, it must be true according to him since he is so willing to "cop" to his own errors so readily.
.
That Twain quote was really rather mild compared to some of the anti-christian ones that could have been chosen such as "There has been only one Christian. They caught him and crucified him--early." It's true, Twain was no Christian (I never claimed he was) but he was a world class smart aleck which is why I quoted him and I may yet quote him again since atheists have no exclusive franchise on his material. Gazettefan should quote him more often as Twain's wit is much more entertaining if not any more effective than Gazettefan's.

The tally for posts here is increasing with no additional posts.

The error wasn't material. And I have copped to a mistake or two here but you, billnewbie, were unGRACIOUS about it and are so much in arrears with copping to your own mistakes, it would take forever for you to catch up.

Again, there's nothing positively religious about Shakespeare and his work.

How did you like the Twain quote?

I guess that statement "The Shakespeare quote is made by a character...." is the closest I'll ever get to a mea culpa from Gazettefan.

"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste."

---- Mark Twain on religion, man, and truth

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

The Shakespeare quote is made by a character in the same way I described it in my previous post -only with more mockery.

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please"- Mark Twain

"God bless thee; and put meekness in thy mind, love, charity, obedience, and true duty!"- William Shakespeare from Richard III Act 2 Scene 2

I referred to Shakespear's plays, the quote below wasn't from one his plays. But rather than give credence to the claim that he was truly religious, the quote below is a mention of god that a lot of people might make without being a serious believer.

The psychological, emotional, and intellectual truth of writers of great literature is revealed in their works. The vast body of Shakespeare's work is not religious -and is certainly not religious in terms of scripture.

Instead, the Bard's work is humanistic. Humanism is considered to be, if not antithetical then at least, superior in truth to religious screeds -believers regard humanism as antithetical to religion or to any sort of serious belief.

billnewbie, I wrote my post in my own words, give it a try.

"God bless thee; and put meekness in thy mind, love, charity, obedience, and true duty!"- William Shakespeare

What is it about a certain poster here who persists with the claim that Shakespeare and his plays were religious? (He also has the same belief about Mark Twain.)

If the Bard's plays were religious, they'd be devoid of his hard wrought understanding and depiction of the complex psychology of the human experience.

(Of course, that poster's problem corresponds with the confirmation bias and tunnel vision inherent to religiosity.)

So how does one enjoy the human experience of someone being murdered (for non-religious reasons) or is that just survival of the fittest?
+
How does one cope with that?

I agree with others. A thoroughly enjoyable read!

Gazettefan, I agree that fellowship is a major component of religion, but disagree that religiosity will ever simply fade away without first having some equivalent framework to replace the moral compass that organized religion now provides to so many. Haven't you ever said to a preacher, "Hey, I really liked what you said except for all of that god nonsense"?

Call me Ishmael.

I dug up yet another Shakespearian quote (I know how much they are appreciated) that seems to describe Gazettefan’s presumptuous mischaracterizations of scripture such as the stories of Job and Abraham,
“And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With old odd ends, stol'n forth of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.”
.
Describes you pretty well, eh Gazettefan or should I call you Wormwood?

whythefuss, any truth (e.g. evolution) that enlightens and frees people from stultifying thought-crime and deadend double-think brings a happiness that is genuinely in touch with the truth of the human experience.

Re: your thoughts on the debate:

Amen

I definitely have to say I have enjoyed the discussion between billnewbie and 1776.

Thanks

I am perfectly happy in my beliefs and things posted (especially by gazettefan) are not going to sway my beliefs. There are definitely some interesting points made here by all sides and they make you think. Do I question myself sometimes? Sure it is human nature to question things-which is why we have been able to discover some wonderful things. However when I look at the whole picture it is hard not acknowledge a greater being. That is hard to comprehend for some, but it is what it is.
+
It is easy to pick things out of books (whether the Bible or Darwin’s evolution theories) and make a case for your side. To do that you often have to ignore valid points, we all do it.
+
Gazettefan has brought up multiple times how does one find comfort in the bad things that happen. How do you resolve this? Where do you find comfort?

Yes, billnewbie, indeed I do. The more you post, the more you reveal the creaky architecture that is "the house of billnewbie" -one doesn't even have to take religion to task with such an edifice.

For instance, I can just pick something out of your last post at random like your crazy condemnation of "pride." If pride is bad then you might want to rethink your understanding of the Book of Job.

It was pride that allowed one of god's counselors (satan) to manipulate god into unimaginably torturing Job and murdering his children. If you have a problem with mis-placed pride, take it up with god -and try to write more pleasant posts here.

I’m sure it’s true that Gazettefan doesn’t really think he’s changing any minds. Even he knows that the rude condescension and ridicule he favors when aiming at people of faith makes them defensive and perhaps even angry and therefore impervious to his argument. So what then is his purpose, I wonder? That seems obvious to me. He needs reassurance, even if he has to provide it himself, that his beliefs are true and that the alternative is too absurd for honest consideration. That courage he boasts of having to “face the truth” needs bolstering from time to time.
.

Courage is a poor substitute for hope, pride a poor substitute for faith. The proud can’t move mountains and courage doesn’t offer hope for a better tomorrow. Faith offers hope that what lies ahead will be worth enduring the trials and tribulations of life. Courage offers only the ability to bear those tribulations without relief. Courage needs reinforcement, it cannot stand alone. Eventually it will fail without it. Faith needs reinforcement too. Faith has hope, a powerful ally. That is why faith endures while courage fades.
.
Still think you're getting to me. Gazettefan?

foolonthehill, over time, under more light of day, religions and religious beliefs will diminish. Though they will probably never disappear entirely, and will even make sporadic big comebacks.

People will always gather in groups. The need for fellowship will always cause people to gather in groups. When religious gatherings are closely examined now, fellowship is the most substantial cause for those gatherings. And for at least an hour once-a-week we know where a lot of the believers are.

Religion and believing should never be outlawed.

MDC..., with the writing process each person's thoughts have a chance to be clarified (at least to a better degree) before the others have a chance to see them. There are no interruptions and misunderstandings are at a minimum and have a better chance to be worked-out when when posting as opposed to in-person conversation.

I've met Cathy, I don't think I'm arguing with her.

'...the real substance of the story above is not religion, the story is substantially about fellowship and self-improvement dressed in the cloak of "faith."' -gazettefan.

Excellent. In one sentence, you've managed to summarize my viewpoint quite nicely, GF. Where we differ, I presume, regards society's need to have that provided in some sort of framework.

GF, I think the author of the article gets a free pass, unless you want to debate something actually in the article. You have an issue with the whole subject of the article, but I don't think there is any specific points in it that you could really debate (well, I can see a couple, but they're not worth it)

BTW- you mention "pitfalls of in-person conversation" frequently. My in-person conversations are generally pitfall free. At least as long as I'm sober...

I will admit however that I find it much easier to express myself on the page than in person. I have never been gifted in the art of conversation. Can't say as I've ever been punched in the nose for anything I've said either, however. You?

And, Cathy, considering the wacky stuff that amounts to religion (which is right up there with UFOs and conspiracy theories), tolerance when it comes to questioning religion is unfair.

And, here the matter can be discussed without the pitfalls of in-person conversation. So, let the points and count-points and diatribes fly with, of course, a certain amount of restraint. Dialogue is good.

;~)

(Besides, the real substance of the story above is not religion, the story is substantially about fellowship and self-improvement dressed in the cloak of "faith.")

Sure, Cathy, no one is ever going change anyone's mind here (though I think I have billnewbie and whythefuss on the ropes) but as long as we're TALKING we're not really, really fighting.

Nonsense Darwin1, I have lots of evidence both physical and historical, I just don't have any that you will accept.

Hey, thanks for the feedback. By "making me crazy," I didn't mean I felt bad about it. I meant "making me crazy" as in having to continually restrain the urge to say funny/snarky or funny/not-so-funny things in the middle of the thread. And that would not be good, believe me.
Respectfully yours (and restraining myself, as always),
C. W. Idzerda

Cathy:
I don't think anyone here actually believes they will change anyone's mind about religion. It's a foregone conclusion that any debate about religion or politics is a lost cause. That doesn't mean it's not entertaining, however. I've actually enjoyed the chance to encounter ideas and perspectives that I would not have otherwise had the chance to. I suspect that I am not alone when I say that I never really knew what I believed until I had to defend my beliefs, or write them down. It is a worthwhile experience if for no other reason than to encourage the poster to think critically about their own beliefs. Either you will find greater clarity and strength in your convictions, or you'll discover they weren't worth defending to begin with.
.
I'm sorry if it has affected you personally. At least your articles are getting lots of hits though, right?
.
I don't think it's at all inappropriate for you to post on your own threads. We'd love the chance to debate with you too =]

Cathy, the voice of reason has no place on this blog. LOL

People! Please!
Not that I want to kill the string, but what does have to do with finding your call? And can I just make a few observations?

To non-believers: It's unlikely that you will shake anyone's faith by suggesting they are ignorant- or by pointing out that we live in a very, very, very bad world. Christians know that and they still believe.

To believers: Quoting the Bible and talking about the devil is not going to convert or impress anyone. Most non-believers are converted by what's called "relationship evangelism."
"Relationship evangelism" can be summed up in the famous quote: "Preach the Gospel at all times--if necessary, use words."

Foofoogrl wonders if we run these articles just to see if people take the bait. That's funny--and depressing. The fact is we run these stories because we know that faith is a
significant part of many people's lives.

It's not entirely appropriate for me to comment on these strings, but between this story--and the story about spiritual New Year's resolutions--I feel like I'm going to lose my mind.

Respectfully yours,
Cathy Idzerda

tjncj-DUH I was using a play on words- sarcasm, ever hear of it??? FIGURE IT OUT & do YOUR homework.

darwin1,
You'll like this article. It contains references. Be sure to read the part that says "However, it clashes irreconcilably with the evolutionary view that the accumulation of mutations over time brings about upward evolution (increasing functional complexity)."
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view...

MDCCLXXVI,
I would probably be honest with the guy or just not even deal with him at all. I'm using the parable of the talents as an example. The employer offered everyone the same amount of money. But those that worked longer hours were expecting to get paid more. The employer essential asks them "Didn't we have a deal?" He wasn't trying to screw them, he was trying to be fair to everyone. So to summarize, if I make a deal I would honor it. But if knew the guy was being dishonest I wouldn't deal with him at all.

darwin1: "You also failed to respond to my questions about the websites you cite which was misleading and lacking on details or fact."
.
I didn't know I was supposed to respond. How am I supposed to answer your questions about the author? Here's your origninal statement:"No citations of his "vast amount of data" which makes me skeptical of his credentials. All scientists know to cite sources or something."
.
So the author should have cited a "reliable" source like Wikipedia? That's the same source you used.

Dr: I missed this line before:"I think Christians could do more in a free market society than in a communist one if they learn the art of self sacrifice"

That is true. I guess it goes to what Don said: in order to answer the question, we have to define Christianity more clearly. Hypothetical question: Let's say I'm working on a multi-million dollar deal. I know the guy I'm dealing with is dishonest and will screw me if he gets the chance. I discover a way to screw him- say there's something wrong with the deal, but I can hide it and get rich. Now assume I consider myself a good Christian. I have a choice: I can give the weasel what he deserves, and take the money I make and give it to charity. The other guy won't be left destitute, he will just be a little less rich (and I'll probably be taking money he got dishonestly anyhow). Or I can be honest in my dealings, and only get the fair value for my deal, leaving me with no profits to give to charity, but I was honest with my fellow man. Which do I choose?

Outside of the question of charity, however, Don is correct: the free market is at odds with Christian behavior, whereas Communism is simply indifferent to it. It could be that the case could be stated even more strongly, since Communism assumes that everyone will be honest in both what they can provide and what they require to survive, so Communism assumes and requires some degree of morality.
It is strange that Communist thinkers all came to the conclusion that in order to break the people of their capitalist habits, the church needed to be dismantled. It seems to me that they should have used the church to their advantage. Instead of threatening to send dissenters and rabble rousers to prison camps, threaten to send them to hell...

Dr:
I think you're both right; the problem is that Don is talking about idealized government, you're talking about functional government. A perfectly free market (one without any regulation) punishes Christian behavior. Yes, two honest parties can exchange goods and services for money, and as you pointed out everyone wins. But the guy who is dishonest is more likely to accumulate wealth more quickly and eliminate the honest competition. In a perfect communist society, each provides what he can, and takes only what he needs. In such a state there is no need for charity because the needs of all are met (again, this is in theory, not necessarily in practice).
Another way to look at it is to say that a free market is intrinsically amoral, and indirectly punishes anyone who attempts to apply morals to their business dealings, whereas Communism is intrinsically moral, and when anyone disregards personal morality the whole system suffers. That is (one of many) fatal flaws with Communism- it ignores human nature, whereas free market economics depends on human nature to succeed, and requires regulation to keep that behavior in check. It's a lot simpler to assume everyone is dishonest and only punish the one's who are blatantly so than it is to assume everyone is good and try to figure out who is not carrying their own weight. Capitalists use the carrot, communists use the stick. The carrot is much more efficient.
You do make a valid point about welfare, however. Communism effectively places everyone on welfare, allocating resources based on need. In such a system there is no opportunity for charity because
a) the needs of all are assumed to be met by the state, and
b) the individual has no surplus to give to charity.
Capitalism, on the other hand, allows for and even requires charity in order to make up for the gross disparities that can result from class conflict. Since the system does not reward the individual for being fair in his dealings, it is up to the individual to apply his morality through charity. When the state becomes a welfare state, however, that opportunity is lost. Wealth redistribution not only denies those with wealth the fruits of their labor, it also denies them the right to be charitable. When morality is forced, it is no longer moral (since, as has been discussed at length, morality requires free will). I can't be good if I don't have the opportunity to be bad, or at least not good.
This really ties back into the "why do bad things happen" discussion. In Communism, bad things (economically) are not allowed to happen. No one can starve to death because they were irresponsible with their resources. But no one can get rich, either (again, in theory, not practice). If we are denied the possibility of starving morally, then any reward for morality is without value.

I pointed out to Dr Talk sometime down the list that there are thousands of transitional fossils but he has decided what to believe. You also failed to respond to my questions about the websites you cite which was misleading and lacking on details or fact.

Billnewbie: Origins has evidence. Something you don't have and will never have to support your claims.

Perhaps instead of state I should say society.

Don, In a true communist society there is no state.

It isn't stealing if the government demands it. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. What is Caesar's? Christ never said, therefore whatever Caesar wants is Caesar's. In a TRUE communist society everything belongs to the state, therefore when it demands what it wants, it cannot be described as stealing since it is owned by the state.

"TRUE communism and TRUE christianity COULD be in the right circumstances."
.
No, it can't. Thou Shalt Not Steal, Remember?

True capitalism allows for caveat emptor, which in essence is what the money changers were doing.
Yes, Jesus does command christians to take care of the poor, but if they don't, can't, or won't then to whom should it fall? Christians spend billions every year building these monumental mega-churches when they could feed people. They buy things they don't need instead of following Christ's example. You may not like the fact that the government practices wealth redistribution, but if it doesn't a truly capitalist society won't. This is why welfare was originally created, to take care of widows and children. If society had been doing their job, the government wouldn't have needed to.

This goes to the original question posed by 1776, TRUE capitalism (which is not being practiced in the US today) and TRUE christianity cannot be compatible bedfellows. TRUE communism and TRUE christianity COULD be in the right circumstances.

"Why did Jesus throw the money changers out of the temple? Were they not just being true capitalists?"
.
No, they weren't. "Thou shalt not steal" They were stealing money - short changing people.
.
Communism isn't SELF sacrifice. It's government theft. It's the government forcing wealth redistribution. Helping others is a personal responsibility, not a government or group responsibility. If I give money to others, it's my own personal choice. If the government takes my money and gives it to others, that's communism.

Why did Jesus throw the money changers out of the temple? Were they not just being true capitalists? Communism IS the idea of self-sacrifice. Putting the good of the group before your own.

Don_Diego:"The idea that christianity and capitalism can walk hand-in-hand is what people like Osteen feed you. The idea that god wants you to be rich."
.
Personally I've never listened to Joel Osteen or read any of his books. But I think Christianity teaches us to be good stewards of everything that God has given us, including money. It requires self sacrifice. I don't have cable TV. I can't justify spending $600+/year on cable when I can use that to help out others. I make other sacrifices to help out others as well. I could help out more if the government wasn't busy taking more money from me as they should. I'm not anti-government, but they should be limited to their responsibilities as defined in the constitution. It's not the government's job to be charitable; it's an individual responsibility (I gave the Biblical example of Jesus telling the rich man that it was his personal responsibility to help the poor). I think the government might have assumed the charitable role because Christians have been lax in this department (not all of them mind you). But I think when government took on the charitable role, people started giving less.
.
I think Christians could do more in a free market society than in a communist one if they learn the art of self sacrifice. Less materialistic and more giving. They wouldn't be more giving with a communist government.

oops, apparently I didn't have your number...let's make that 1776.

MDDCLXXVI: I have to agree with tjncj. Your posts have been fascinating to read. For the most part, what you have to say, and the way you say it, have kept me coming back for more of your “insight”. Much of what you say was very much parallel to what I’ve had floating around in my head, though what’s in my head may not be nearly so concisely or thoughtfully “worded”. And you’re “matter-of-fact”, not lording your philosophy over others-if I may say it that way.
I know that some who didn’t continue in this conversation were though to have fallen by the wayside because they were, perhaps, admitting defeat. Not so, of course. Or didn’t have the flowery words-well, maybe. But it should be acknowledged that lots of time had to have gone into many of the posts on both sides-something that we don’t all have to dedicate at any given moment. But more than that-when the discussion turns to ridicule and mockery (and I’m sure you know the posts I mean), it is no longer a discussion or debate, but a childish playground fight. (For the record, Gfan, billnewbie, DrTalk etc also make the debate interesting).
I just wanted you to know, you have another follower; it’s great stuff, and reading and even learning from such skillfully worded discourse is a much smaller time commitment than trying to add to it (who could top some of that stuff?!). I think you’ve covered it all-and eloquently.
As long as you know, sometimes it’s: “I suspect several of you are like me in that we have a running dialog in our heads about God, politics, MEN and philosophy”. (Men may have a corner on this particular discussion, but we females have a vested interest.)

tjncj: wow, thanks. I'm flattered, and a bit embarrassed. I suspect several of you are like me in that we have a running dialog in our heads about God, politics, women and philosophy (not necessarily in that order). I'm always a bit surprised when I speak out loud and someone not inside my head agrees with me =]

Thanks, double D. That was precisely what I was driving at: Capitalism and Christianity are not completely incompatible, but successful capitalism and Christianity are.

"Capitalism when practiced with Christian views is win-win." But the nature of capitalism is NOT christian. Capitalism says ME first. Whoever has the most wins, not a christian virtue. TRUE communism has more christian values than does capitalism. 1776's point was exactly correct. We often mistake what took place under Stalin as being the communism that Marx spoke of. NOT SO!!! Stalinist Russia was a dictatorship! This is not communism. True communism, which I admit works better on paper than in real-life, espouses more christian virtues than capitalism. TRUE capitalism was practiced here in the US during the industrial revolution. The situation was so bad that Marx thought up communism. The idea that christianity and capitalism can walk hand-in-hand is what people like Osteen feed you. The idea that god wants you to be rich.

MDCCLXXVI, as I said before, from rebirth on we have much to do, the job is not done. I take no credit for my salvation, that all belongs to Him. And yes, salvation is really that simple. Believe that Christ died for you and be saved. That’s not my words but His. While speculating about the nature of God and His existence is not totally dependent on the bible, salvation and how it is achieved through Christ is or it is not Christian. God through Christ does all the heavy lifting. As Christ said, “My yoke is easy”. As Paul said, we are justified by faith and not by works so that no one can boast. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Paul recognized you objection when he wrote “What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid”. We are called to separate ourselves from sin, not because we are under the threat of damnation but because we are born again of the Spirit and as such we are to live accordingly. And while I may stumble along the way, I am not obliged to atone for myself again as that work is done and my salvation is not at risk. That does not mean that I am free to sin, nor does it mean that I need not repent if I do or that there are no consequences if I refuse which, having been born again, I would not.
.
When you said that you realize that you have some work to do, how is that going? I don’t mean to be facetious but the fact is that if we could fix the things that are wrong with us, Christ need not have died. I realize that I am probably starting to sound repetitious but we cannot fix ourselves. We cannot undo what has been done, and our sinful nature cannot be tamed by our will alone. Certainly as one gains experience in life one may believe he has the beast under control. But there are moments of clarity when one recognizes the beast within and its untamable nature. Only salvation provides the strength to tame that beast through the Spirit of God. Have you not heard of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? I realize that doctrine provides the skeptics with endless amusement yet as I’ve said, to be Christian depends on what is written in the bible and that doctrine resides there. I mean no offense, but for one who claims to be Christian, you seem to be unfamiliar with what’s written there.

Wow 1776, that was a great post. I have gone back and read all your posts on this subject and taken much from them. Thank you.

Bill:
I am familiar with the experience you’re describing. I’ve been there, twice. Well, not quite. The first time was when I was about 19. I was so ashamed that I quit going to church for a good 15 years. Hence the ‘not quite’: I ran from God and myself. The second time I had the epiphany you’re talking about when my son started asking hard questions. At least that’s what started it. It took some time before I was able to get on my knees and be brutally honest with myself in front of God.
.
The thing is, I came away with a realization of how much work I have to do, the things I need to fix in my life. I realized I needed help from above, but at no point did I ever think I was ‘saved’, that I had somehow accomplished anything of value. Quite the opposite. I realized how screwed I was unless I straightened up. I realized how others see me and depend on me, how God probably sees me. I asked for strength and forgiveness. But the idea that I would walk away from that experience with the notion that I had done the hard part, that I had accepted my ticket into heaven is so absurd to me that frankly it’s a bit offensive. I felt better, like I was on the right path. Not, however, that I was done. I was just beginning.
.
By preaching this ‘saved’ stuff, you’re taking the moment when people are most vulnerable, most willing to establish a relationship with God and start living the way He wants, and you’re telling them they’re done! Now all they have to do is go spread the good word. The moment they’re closest to God in this life, and you have the audacity to hijack it and redirect into something shallow and meaningless.
.
I’m sorry if that sounds really harsh, I wish I could think of a way to couch it in kinder terms, but your version of Christianity sounds so superficial. I know you don’t feel that way, I know you feel like your life is filled with the Light of Christ, but I wish you could see it from my perspective: you’re leaving out massive chunks of what Christ preached. You seem like a really decent guy, who is generally level headed and intelligent, so it upsets me that you’re buying into this stuff. You’re taking all the meat out of Christianity, replacing it with weak soup. Your God defies logic and reason, is arbitrarily cruel, threatens fire and brimstone, and then lets His followers off just because they feel bad. Once. Come on man, ask yourself honestly, is this really all God expects of me? Just to try to be good, accept his help, and give him props? No wonder so many people find it so attractive.
I think we all have those moments, or something close to it. But just having one and saying your saved doesn’t get you into heaven, buddy. Yes, Christ is the key, and it’s great that you’ve got the big points down. But ask God what he thinks about it. I think you’ll find that there’s more to it than you realize.

nurse4you-That "rebirth" had nothing to do with being a "born again" Christian. Do your homework before posting.

Jesus told the rich man to sell what he has and give to the poor. He didn't say "steal from the rich and give to the poor". That's wealth redistribution, a communist concept. Jesus also didn't say "Start a government organization that taxes people, keep the money you need for administrative overhead, and what's left over should be given to those less fortunate."

Also: where do you think His capitol will be?
a. Rome
b. Jerusalem
c. Washington DC
d. U.N. Headquarters in Manhattan
e. Compton
f. Brooklyn
g. Salt Lake City
h. Shared office space with Bill Clinton in Harlem
i. Mexico, China or India (cause that’s where all the jobs are going)
j. The Moon

MDCCLXXVI,
"capitalism is confrontational(adversarial) and rewards behavior that is decidedly not Christian.
.
Not from a Christian perspective. There's the law "Thou shalt not steal." Capitalism when practiced with Christian views is win-win. A Christian store owner will not try to short change(steal from) their customers which would be stealing. A Christian store owner would short change, thus steal from, the employees either ("The laborer is worthy of his reward", 1 Tim. 5:18)

You know there was a story about an adopted girl who they tried to recreate the event of her birth with her being rolled in blankets. Tried to make her "born again." BTW-The little girl died.

MDCCLXXVI, I would have to agree with you when you say that you cannot declare that you have been saved. Being saved, and therefore being born again are actual events that you would know you had if you had them. When I said that you must accept that you need salvation, that act is a humbling experience that you will not forget. It does not just involve the knowledge that I have sinned, it is seeing myself for what I am as God sees me and with similar results. It is a process that no one wants to go through. For nearly all of us, that is the first time we have ever been completely honest with ourselves about just what we truly are. That is why so many will not do it as Milton alluded, they would rather reign in hell that serve in heaven which is a humbling act, a submissive act. It is as profoundly humiliating as it is simplistic. When Christ said that to enter His kingdom we have to pick up our cross and follow him, he meant that our act of submission to his will is a painfully humiliating experience, our cross to bear. When the thief on the cross next to Him admitted his sin and his punishment being deserved, he asked Christ to remember him when He comes into His kingdom. Then Christ said, today shalt thou be with me in paradise. The thief on the cross had an epiphany which led him to recognizing his guilt and to ask for salvation which was granted without qualification.
.
I’m sorry to hear that you have had unpleasant experiences with some who claim to be born again. Some in their zeal attempt to scare others with hellfire. That usually has poor results. Others misunderstand what they perceive or lack the talent for proselytizing. And some are simply not what they claim to be.

replace "confrontational" with "adversarial" below. I am not in conflict with the people from whom I buy and sell, but I am competing to get the best value for my money or the most money for my goods and services.

Bill:
I will cede your point about God vs Nation. Your right- it is a mistake to try to apply personal behavior to matters of state. I asked the question on a whim, and accept your answer. I think GF is closer to the mark than Dr though: I don't see how capitalism and Christianity are complimentary. I'm not bickering, Dr., I am genuinely curious how you came to that conclusion. To me it seems to be the opposite- capitalism is confrontational and rewards behavior that is decidedly not Christian. It seems to me that Communism would be a better fit with Christianity; not Communism as practiced (and failed) in the history of the real world, but the theoretical ideals of Communism as envisioned by the early thinkers (up to the point that they realized that in order to succeed they had to supplant religion).
.
Or, more specifically, I assume you believe that Christ will return and rule the Earth. Do you think Christ's government will be democratic/capitalist? Do we get to vote?

Finally, billnewbie, you're beginning to see the light.

The Bolshevik Revolution was a reaction to the religious tyranny of Czar Nicholas -who was also regarded as the religious leader of Russia.

billnewbie and MDCCLXXVI-What a breath of fresh air to read an intelligent, polite discourse on the subject versus the hateful, intolerant posts that usually dominate subjects such as these.

Sorry Bill, when you start using terms like "saved" and "born again", you loose me. I just don't buy it. I don't have the audacity to declare that I have been saved. I am not in the position to make that statement, nor I believe is any mortal. Will I be saved? Maybe, we'll see.
Likewise the whole 'born again' notion. That simply doesn't mean anything to me. I realize the scriptures instruct us to be born again in Christ, but I don't see that as an event, like a baptism or graduation. It is a process, so when someone claims to have been born again, I find that odd. I don't get to declare myself 'born again'. Nor does being born again magically change me into a better person. Your theology seems to focus on those two notions, and expect that everything else will naturally follow. I don't know about you, but I'm still human, I still have wants and needs that compel me to sin. Being born again does not grant me some kind of shield or change my personality. In fact, the people I know who were born again turned into annoying asses who insisted I am going to hell for not being like them.
.
How can you say "much is given, much is expected", but at the same time say that salvation doesn't hinge on it? So your saying God has expectations of us, but if we ignore them we're still good to go? You said it right there: God has expectations of you. But your not held to them, as long as you accept Christ's gift? Are you sure God and Christ are on the same page here? It seems like God has much higher standards than Christ.
Look: I'm not saying you can always (or ever) fully repay your debts to your fellow men. Some debts are unpayable. But that doesn't let you off the hook. If they don't accept it, that's on them. If you can't afford it, pay what you can (and think twice about what you can afford. If you have to go without, that is your problem, not theirs). I feel like I'm repeating myself, but even though you can't get into heaven on your own, if you don't behave as if you could, then you're not really living up to what is expected of you, and frankly yes, I do believe salvation does hinge on it to some degree. If you believe you have a relationship with God, one that will persist into the afterlife, then you have to ask yourself how good that relationship is. The crucifixion just gets you in the door. Are you willing to settle for that? It feels to me like this whole born again/saved business is getting into heaven on a technicality. I prefer to believe that God expects you to follow the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law.

If I close my eyes, and my mind, I can see it all now. There's Stalin, kneeling at an alter, hands folded, high priest standing over him offering him some sacramental wine, Mao kneeling next to him awaiting his turn with Pol Pot on the other side stiffeling his belch. Really, I just don't understand why I still cling to my archaic beliefs in light of Gazettefan's poignant remarks.

Capitalism tolerates christianity -which, at best, is regarded as an object of curiosity.

How many times have believers said communism is a religion -well, finally they are right about something -it doesn't matter what Crazy Karl personally believed.

Matt 5:37 through 39 reads “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” These passages were admonitions to refrain from personal vengeance. They were not meant as pacifistic commands. Some used, and continue to use the eye for and eye passage as justification for revenge. We are still obliged to defend ourselves and our families and country. As I said, justification for war lies within motivation and restraint as is personal self-defense. We are not obliged to allow ourselves to be murdered or even assaulted and robbed. Neither is a country prohibited from defending itself. In fact, government was ordained by God for precisely those purposes, to seek justice and defend against our enemies.

gazettefan and Don_Diego,
Karl Marx was against everything Christianity stood for, hence Communism. Christianity and the free market go hand-in-hand. The free market is a win-win situation. The buyer gets what he wants (the goods) the seller gets what he wants (the money.)

Yes, christianity, at a minimum has communistic undertones. Consider how people who become leaders of communist countries do so by tapping into long histories of religiosity -then they rule as unelected, all-powerful messiahs of sorts with unrealistically idealized promises of communal life -communal, communism -same root word.

Also, consider the prohibition of questioning and natural curiosity in communist countries -this corresponds with the totalitarianism of religiosity.

MDCCLXXVI, is seeking to repay a wronged brother the right thing to do? Yes, but salvation does not hinge on it. A wronged brother, like God, may not accept whatever you can pay. And what if you can pay nothing but an unaccepted apology? Conversely, we are obligated to forgive those who have wronged us. As the bible says, to those whom much has been given, much is expected. But still, that is not a requirement of salvation. However these things when they are performed are evidence of salvation, of being born again. We do not forgive and seek forgiveness to acquire salvation, we forgive and seek forgiveness because we are saved, because we are compelled to do so by our newly reborn condition. The cause of our new righteousness is our salvation. You seem to think that righteousness is the cause of salvation, at least in part. As I said, if we could be righteous Christ need not have died. Like a newborn, the reborn have much to learn. Life from then on is a process toward perfection which will never be attained in this life. Therefore, if we were obligated to sin no more, or to atone for ourselves, we could not be saved. We are exhorted to these things, but they are not conditional to salvation. That old cliché is true, I am not perfect, just saved.

A truly christian nation cannot survive. It cannot turn a cheek and it cannot follow Jesus's most important commandment when he told his disciples to give up everything to follow him. Capitalism and christianity are diametrically opposed. Of course that depends on how you interpret the bible. Which brings up an even greater dilemma, what version of christianity are we using to justify this claim?

right, Bill. The defenders are trying to protect their lives, liberty and property. Mostly their property.
.
I never said all war was unjustified. Nor does recognizing the fact that war is fought for resources imply that the motive for war is greed. The truth is that there will always be fewer resources available than there are consumers. A society creates the state to serve and protect themselves. If they have more need or want for resources than they can support, it is reasonable to expect them to take them from elsewhere. If those resources are controlled by another state, then they are obligated to take them, by force if necessary. A government's first obligation is to it's own constituents. If it has to kill people who are not members of that nation, so be it.
.
I realize this is an imperialistic viewpoint, which is considered outdated. Imperialism is allegedly illegal in the international community, but it still goes on. Nations just use money instead of guns now.
.
The way the West treats third world nations is evidence that we are still very much engaged in imperialism. Personally, I am not opposed to imperialism, and think it is more honorable and honest to take over a country and it's people than it is to rape them of their resources, exploit their labor and meddle in their national affairs. We control large parts of the world without the burden of actually allowing them to participate in our democracy, protecting their borders (until our welfare is threatened), or providing them an equivalent standard of living.
.
An interesting question is raised: it is alleged that we are a Christian nation (I disagree, but let's pretend that it's true). Can a Christian nation survive? Could a government love it's neighbors and turn the other cheek and still serve the interests of it's constituents?

Bill: My point is that what you're describing is an important (perhaps the most important and the most difficult) step in repentance, but not the full act. I laid out what I believe is the complete process of repentance, and skipping any steps invalidates the entire process. Restitution, for example, is too often ignored. Christ paid our debt to God, but what about our debts to our fellow men? If we are instructed to love our neighbors, and we wrong them, then it is our responsibility to make it right with them. Christ will make it right with God, so long as we ask, but he can't help us with our debts to our fellow men.
.
I agree that we should not believe works will get us into heaven, or that our works make us somehow more worthy than anyone else; that is a vain and dangerous path that many "religious" people fall victim to. Having said that, I think that the notion that if we accept Christ into our lives, good works will follow is too weak a statement (I'm not attributing that to you, but if I remember right you hold to that idea more or less). We need to actively and consciously seek out opportunities to do good works, not because we're trying to prove our worth or earn salvation, but rather to prove that we are earnest in our intent (prove is a bit callous of a word, but I hope you get my meaning).

Not all wars are fought for material gain, Hitler didn't try to conquer the world for the money or the territory and the things of value found there, he was in it for the power and the glory with a modicum of vengence thrown in. He was building his thousand year Reich within which his name would be spoken with reverence as Christ is spoken of. Certainly he used material gain as an inducment for support from his constituents but his personal motivations lay elseware. Also, wars are fought by 2 sides. One side seeks gain, the other defends. The original aggressor is not always the freebooter, it is often times the defender who is trying to pre-empt the initiative so as to destroy the enemy's ability to threaten. War is not always unjustifiable. Justification for war lies within motivation and restraint.

MDCCLXXVI, isn't an acknowledgement of sin an act of repentance? I seem to have made my explanation too simplistic, but the point I was trying to make is that we have to agree with God about our sin, an act of acknowledgement which seems to me to imply repentance so I agree that repentance is necessary. I agree also that salvation is not carte blanche to sin, as Paul wrote,” Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.” As far as good works go, I’m in favor of good works that advance grace and relieve human suffering, but not for assisting in my redemption. The work on the cross was complete. If I could save myself, He need not have died. I would go and sin no more if I could, but I am not yet perfected and I don’t expect to be anytime soon even though I strive towards that goal. I am never the less saved in spite of my continuing and hopefully ever decreasing iniquities.

Just referencing a supreme court decision today which allows religious symbols to be place in public parks...something that's been a battle for years.

Nurse: (still catching up here, sorry for repeated posts) I've made this point before, but I'll say it again:
.
"Killing in the name of Christianity seems to be the justification of many wars, just as killing in the name of Judaism and Allah and etc etc. also goes that route."
.
Don't believe it. There has only ever been and will only ever be one reason for war: money (or it's equivalent: power, land, slaves, resources, etc.)
.
Religion is simply a lever used to convince sane people to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up. The front line might buy the religion angle, but the forces behind them are seeking only to increase or defend their property. Granted, religion is a damn good lever, but take it away and they'll find a new one. Even without religion, everyone wants to live forever. Being a martyr, having your name go down as someone who died honorably for their nation is a sort of immortality.

Oh, I get it nurse. You're comparing Christ to Hitler. Both were charismatic men who's speeches left millions dead. I guess you can make that point. In fairness, Hitler had a direct hand and knowledge of the millions dying under his regime. I don't think you can say the same about Christ (this is from the position that Christ was just a man). Hitler ordered millions of people be killed, Christ has had millions killed in his name, after His death. Not quite the same, but I get your point (if that was what you were getting at).
If your arguing that Christ is a God and is just as aware as Hitler of what is being done in His name and therefore just as culpable... hmmm, I'll have to think about that for a while.

nurse: what are you referring to? there's a lot of posts below.
Milton: huh?

re. Hitler: exactly, Bill. It's best to just not involve him in any discussion of religion because both sides can use him to support their arguments, because he used both sides to support his.

Instead of reposting what I wrote earlier I will just say this-SEE POSTS BELOW.

Sorry Bill, I'm afraid we can't even agree on that.
.
Everything you said is true, except you've left out repentance. Just acknowledging the fact that I am not perfect and accepting the gift of redemption (what does that even mean?)is not enough. I don't get to say "it's all good, Christ has already picked up the tab for my sins" and go about my life.
.
You compared sin to debt. How would you feel if you gave someone money to get out of debt, and they then spent the money on beer and women, without paying off any of their debt? You'd be pretty mad. Why then is it OK to treat Christ like that? Just because Christ has done all the heavy lifting doesn't mean your completely off the hook. You have to avoid sin, recognize when you do sin, ask forgiveness from both God and whomever you've offended, do whatever it takes to make things right, and promise God not to sin again.
.
Christ died for your sins, but you're still responsible for keeping the bill as small as possible, and paying what you can. Your explanation lets the sinner off way too easy.
.
You've also left out the matter of works. No, you can't "earn" your way into heaven with good works, but faith without works is dead. The point of both repentance and works is that you have to do more than just "draw near to God with your lips", or accept Christ in your life (another vague mantra I never really understood), God expects you to prove it. You can never actually prove yourself worth, but you damn well better try.

Concerning Hitler, Constantine, Charlemagne or any other human, what a person says about himself is meaningless. We are all ultimately known by the things we do. Whether Hitler was insane or just evil (I suspect evil and then insane), he was an opportunist who would say or do whatever it took to attain power. To attempt to assign responsibility for him and his actions to any group is disingenuous and even opportunistic.

MDCCLXXVI, my "flavor" of Christianity is centered around Christ and what's known as His substitution atonement for me (and anyone else who claims it). To me, that is what defines true religion and distinguishes it from all the rest of the world's religions. In all other religions, people are directed to atone for themselves either through ritual or self-sacrifice of some type or another. Even within churches that claim to be Christian, they engage in sacraments and even purchase indulgences to atone for sin. Christ likened sin to debt, a debt so great that it cannot be repaid. Does a debtor have the right to set the terms of his own redemption? Yet through Christ God provides redemption to all who apply. It is the free gift of salvation with just 2 caveats, that we acknowledge our need of salvation and accept the gift. That seems simple yet it is just that acknowledgment that causes so many to reject the gift and it explains all the other religions of the world and why they are so attractive to the rebellious human spirit. If we agree on this, then all other disagreements are insignificant.

I only mentioned Hitler (along with Constantine & Charlemagne) as a reference to how even an insane person can have millions following him which led to millions of deaths. My other points stand.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States today issued a landmark First Amendment ruling clearing the way for governments to accept permanent monuments of their choosing in public parks.
.
The decision comes in the case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, a critical First Amendment case in which the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) represented the Utah city in a challenge to a display of the Ten Commandments in a city park.
.
In a 9-0 decision announced by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court concluded: ''In sum, we hold that the City's decision to accept certain privately donated monuments while rejecting respondent's is best viewed as a form of government speech. As a result, the City's decision is not subject to the Free Speech Clause, and the Court of Appeals erred in holding otherwise. We therefore reverse.''

Even among historians specializing in this particular subject, there is no real consensus regarding what exactly Hitler's religious beliefs were. The most we can say with certainty is that he was raised Catholic, and that at various times in his life professed both a belief in Christ and creation and contempt for religion and religious intolerance. The Nazi persecution of the Jews was specifically not religious, it was socioeconomic. As evidence, he condemned the media for attacking the Jewish faith, and did not believe that a Jew who converted to Christianity was not still a Jew. It is best if Hitler were left out of this discussion. He was neither Christian or Atheist, nor was he even remotely sane.

Bill:
I'm sorry- I should have been more clear: the Adam and Eve bit was not directed at you personally, it was meant only to illustrate how God has laws he must adhere to: specifically that He can do no evil. I don't see that as diminishing His power. It just seems to make more sense than the other more convoluted explanations for how and why evil exists if a perfectly good God created the entire universe. If your version makes sense to you, then great; I'm not trying to convert anyone, I just want them to explain and defend their beliefs. If they can't or won't, then shouldn't they be asking themselves why?
.
If I put words in your mouth, I apologize. FWIW, I enjoy sparring with you. You can disagree with someone and still like them. While we disagree on some things, there are others that we agree on (i.e. the rejection of original sin). We believe in different flavors of Christianity, but despite the way I come across I still have more beliefs in common with you than GF and co. It is unfortunate that they seem to have exclusive domain over common sense and reason (again, not a dig at you, but rather the 'hallelujah' crowd with whom I am frequently embarrassed to be associated).

MDCCLXXVI, where I wrote the word protractor below, please insert the word detractor.

Scripture is written by men that "claim" to be inspired by God. The books are then gathered or rejected by men with beliefs that they have that they want YOU to believe unconditionally.

So you are blindly following what another man has dictated is God's Word. Do you not see the irony of that?

His beliefs were rooted in christianity. You do not know that all of his beliefs were because of evolution.

Also, you are missing the main points that I am making. You are stuck on Hitler.

I am NOT bashing any religion. I am just stating that there is NO RIGHT RELIGION.

nurse4u,
"But Hitler was still a Christian, a Catholic."
.
Yes, but that's not the point. I said he did it because of his belief that the Aryan race was superior which he got from the idea of evolution. I never said he was an atheist.

But Hitler was still a Christian, a Catholic.

Killing in the name of Christianity seems to be the justification of many wars, just as killing in the name of Judaism and Allah and etc etc. also goes that route.

Scripture is written by men that "claim" to be inspired by God. The books are then gathered or rejected by men with beliefs that they have that they want YOU to believe unconditionally. If we would have all followed what Hitler believed, where would we be now? Just as Hitler led, so did Constantine and Charlemagne.

So you are blindly following what another man has dictated is God's Word. Do you not see the irony of that?

nurse4u,
"He was a Christian and not an atheist"
.
I said he did it as a result of his belief in evolution. He certainly didn't do it out of his belief in Christianity. There are plenty of Christians that believe in evolution (however contradictory that may seem.

It was clear before your last post addressed to me that you think I’m wrong, MDCCLXXVI just as I think are you. My point about you is still valid. You seem to be torn between atheistic philosophy and theism as you interchange them back and forth. You find that your perception of conventional theism condemns God as a tyrant so you embrace some of the anti-theistic arguments with a weakening of His power to account for evil and its effects. You may well become an atheist yet as you identify with both their philosophy and their methods. By the way, condemn me if you must for what I write, not for what you assume I think. I have made no statements concerning Adam whatsoever. Neither do I rely solely on scripture. You have much in common with Gazettefan and his flawed powers of assumption as you share a propensity to belittle your protractors while assuring yourself that you do so for their own good.

nurse4u,
"How was Man to replenish the earth without adultery and yes, incest? The story of Cain and Abel seems to be condoned by God.."
.
It is true that incest is wrong today. But in the original creation, Adam and Eve' offspring didn't have any other choice and at that time wasn't condemned by God. It wasn't condemned by God until He gave the law to Moses when the Israelites were in the wilderness. Leviticus 18.

Hitler was raised a Catholic and had roots in Judaism. He was a Christian and not an athesist. He certainly believed what he was able to justify to himself and he convinced all of Germany to follow him..leading to the deaths of millions.

My point is, once again, I can find a Bible Verse to back up anything I want to do. It does not make it right or condoned by God.

As far as killing in the name of Christainity, those people simply are not living according to scripture (Loving God and loving others). Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini were believers in evolution and they murdered millions of people as a result of their belief(Hitler thought the Aryan race was supreme). But an evolutionist will tell you that not all evolutionists will take "survival of the fittest" to the extreme.

Yet as MDC points out-the Bible contradicts itself. How was Man to replenish the earth without adultery and yes, incest?

The story of Cain and Abel seems to be condoned by God...

I've noticed that many believers seem to share a common misconception --that atheists and heathens are roughly equivalent forms of non-believer and, through that misconception, hold onto the hope of someday converting atheists into believers.

Most atheists (true atheists) I've known came their belief rationally by way of the scientific method of gaining knowledge: from observation to conclusion by way of consistent logical analysis and repeatable proof. Believers have about as much chance of ever converting a rational atheist as they have of convincing an astronomer that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

On the other hand, many atheists hold on to the complimentary misconception --that it is possible to somehow awaken a true believer into a state of fully conscious reason, all the while knowing that reason played no part whatsoever in leading the believer to where they are today.

gfan-I just saw what you wrote. We must be on the same wavelengths...or we are inspired...

"In the Bible, men took many wives and fathered many children-yet adultery is a sin. Fathers killed sons and brothers killed brothers yet the bible states "Thou Shall Not Kill.""
.
That doesn't mean it was the right thing to do and it certainly doesn't mean that it was condoned by God. There was also consequences for their actions.

My bad, DrT, I was confused because you stated that the Bible was written by men that claim to be inspired by God-the keyword here is "claimed".

What about the other points that I made..care to comment on those?

MDC-It is not Adam that they are blaming, but rather, Eve. It is always Eve's fault. It is this mindset that has women at the bottom of the totem Pole serving men. It is this same mindest that justifies men beating their wives.

It is very refreshing to see what you wrote. You have made some great points. Kudos!

nurse4u: "You stated that all scripture is inspired by God, yet you say that the Bible does not make that claim to be written by God"
.
I said no such thing. I said it would make little sense to say that the Bible is inspired by God IF (you must have missed the IF) the Bible never made that claim itself.

DrTalk- What you state does not make sense. You stated that all scripture is inspired by God, yet you say that the Bible does not make that claim to be written by God.. I feel like I am watching a puppy chase his tail in circles.

There are may religions that do not even believe that Jesus was the son of God and have their scripture to back that up. History itself is inconclusive about if Jesus actually died that day on the cross. So your spouting of scripture only proves the points you need to make. My point is I can find a Bible Verse to back up anything I want to do-but it does not make that right, or inspired by God.
In the Bible, men took many wives and fathered many children-yet adultery is a sin. Fathers killed sons and brothers killed brothers yet the bible states "Thou Shall Not Kill."

The New Testament in itself is so broad with conflicting stories about the same events by men who claim to be the Apostoles themselves. Gospels that devote a diffrent approach to Christianity were left out by a man-Constantine.

Charlemegne killed thousands in the name of Christianity. The Holy Wars errupting in the Middle East are done so in the name of God and Allah. Many are killed-and yes, INNOCENT children are killed. Hitler himself thought he was the leader of the divine race and massacred millions to wipe out Jews and others he deemed inferior. Men do not determine what is the RIGHT religion. There is no RIGHT religion.

We need to learn to accept others for their beliefs without fear or prejudice. Then these senseless killings in the name of God/Allah will cease to exist. Peace on Earth. I think that is the true meaning of any God's-Goddess'-Allah-Jehovah-Buddha etc's plan.

DrT: a common misconception of Atheists is that because they believe in evolution, which involves survival of the fittest, they apply that principal to their own lives. The truth is the opposite: in the absence of religion and the fear of God to keep people in line, they rely on empathy, compassion, and recognition of the social contract to keep people honest. Survival of the fittest may apply to the animal kingdom, but to think they apply it socially is incorrect. They're waiting for mankind to evolve past the need for tribalism and belief in the supernatural to keep us from eating each other. As such, your kids are probably pretty safe around them, so long as you don't mind them talking to your kids about religion.

billnewbie, Shakespeare wasn't the religionist you think he was. The same goes for Mark Twain -remember him?

And, I brought your problem of projection into these debates a long time ago.

DrTalk, in the bible, god told parents to have their misbehaving children stoned. He also said that fathers should sell their daughters to other men. He also brutalized Job and his family out putrid pride.

Bill:
I don’t find fault with theology, just your theology. I have a clear position: you’re all wrong. There, I think that was pretty clear. Look, the Atheists have some damn good points. A great deal of the ideas associated with apostolistic Christianity fall somewhere between silly and dangerous. Furthermore, as GF has pointed out again and again, blind unquestioning faith not only fails to serve anyone, but all too often results in mass murder. My intent is not to attack Christianity, but rather to force Christians to evaluate their faith to determine which doctrines are true, and which are lies.
Also, my God is not weak by any stretch of the imagination. But he is also not magical. Again, to lean on GF here, there must be laws that God must follow. Were it otherwise, if God had complete freedom, then He would not be God. Bad things happen to people. If God had the ability to interfere at will, on a whim as it were, then the fact that He didn’t would prove that He is not the all powerful all loving being you claim. Your argument that He helps sometimes would describe a pretty good or even really good God. God is not pretty good, He is perfect good. It amazes me that you can’t see that the God you’re describing is a real bastard. I prefer to believe that he does not interfere because He cannot. That does not mean his power is limited. To the contrary: it is the adherence to those laws, the understanding of those laws that make Him God. To your secondary argument that those rules, or whoever created them would then be the true God, the laws were not “written” by anyone, they simply are. We’re talking about fundamental axioms of the universe: i.e. mathematics. Unless you think God created math. The universe is not the way it is because God arbitrarily decided it would be this way, nor is it because God created a perfect world but then Man came along and messed it up. It is because it must be this way.
Oh, and re. this whole “blame Adam for everything” mindset: God gave Adam and Eve more than one commandment. One was “don’t touch the tree of knowledge” (ie. remain innocent and childlike). He also said “Go forth and replenish the Earth”. It should be obvious that those two commandments contradict each other. So why set Adam up like that? Because he had to. Eating from the tree would introduce bring sin into the world. Being God, He can’t do that. But sitting in the Garden, not knowing right from wrong was not fulfilling the commandment to go forth and replenish the Earth, which was necessary for all of the rest of us to get here. God gave Adam a commandment he knew he would have to break, to allow man to sin and get about the business of living. God had to do it that way, and Adam had to sin. So quit blaming Adam for everything wrong in the world- if not for the fall, you’d never have been born.

gazettefan,
I have not "quibbled" myself into a corner. You only say that because you can't logically disprove my syllogism.

"And, your hypothetically murdered or killed child is a sinner and by the internal "logic" of your belief-system had it coming. It's a good thing you quibbled yourself into that corner. Stay away from the kids."
.
Again, you don't get it. I'm trying to help everyone gain redemption, including the kids.
But death and destruction goes hand-in-hand with your theory of evolution. Survival of the fittest, right? So why would an atheist/evolutionist bother helping anybody? There's no logic to it. Maybe you should stay away from the kids.

"And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of." _William Shakespeare

MDCCLXXVI,
"So you’re going to cite scripture to defend the validity of scripture? Even a true believer should recognize how that argument is circular."
.
You don't understand. I use it to prove that divine inspiration is claimed by the authors of Scripture. It wouldn't make sense to claim that the Bible is inspired by God if the Bible never made that claim for itself.

whybesad, say hello to your corner-mate, DrTalk.

DrTalk, you have quibbled yourself into a corner re: your "beginning" "cause" flummery.

And, your hypothetically murdered or killed child is a sinner and by the internal "logic" of your belief-system had it coming. It's a good thing you quibbled yourself into that corner. Stay away from the kids.

gazettefan,

Does your arm get tired from patting yourself on the back all day?
+
You obviously are very "me" focused-that explains a lot.

billnewbie, consider the hostile nature of your post and how it does nothing to advance the "validity" of your belief.

Your post only reveals that your need for fantasy is evidence of the fear of what lies below the flimsiness of that fantasy.

By the way, if you were clear-headed, you would realize that the attempts by you and some of your ilk to provoke me has only backfired on some of the ones who are no longer here. You and they are not as smart as you think.

gazettefan: "And, if you say everything has a cause, you can't pretend to be logical by abandoning your proofless claim once you conjure up the idea of god."
.
I didn't say everything has a cause. I said everything WHICH HAS A BEGINNING has a cause. If the universe began with a big bang, did the big bang have a beginning?
.
"you explained nothing about the suffering of the innocent."
.
No one is truly innocent, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23). Everyone has a sin nature as a result of Adam's rebellion against God. Bad things happen to Christians and non-Christians alike. Blaming God is not the answer since God did not cause the suffering, man did.

Yes, MDC, good point. Where is the defense of "faith" that deals with the real world experiences of the inarticulate believers.

Let's hear, for example, about how they deal with the cold hard fact that the majority of the problem-people in their lives are, by their own count, believers just like they are.

Some of us who have posted on this discussion have found what they believe is their calling while many, it is obvious, have not.
.
I knew when I read this item, without even looking, who would be first and most frequent to post. Gazettefan’s calling is to stamp out as much faith as he can, any way he can. Cynicism, ridicule, subtle insults and disingenuousness are his tools and he is well practiced in their use. In spite of all that, he may yet have an epiphany in his future. Hope does spring eternal. So although he seems to have abandoned all hope, he may someday acquire some again. I hope for his sake he does.
.
Darwin1 is on a similar mission as Gazettefan’s. Promoting his namesake seems to be his calling. I find it amusing that he is of the belief that all who disagree with Darwin’s theory never read his book. Does “the Origins of the Species” have mystical powers that cast spells on its readers immediately compelling them to swear off theism and embrace atheistic Darwinism? How strange that I seem to be immune. Still, if one were to read that book with a predisposition to find reasons to reject all deities then one may well find it in those pages. While Darwin1 may find comfort in the reassurance he gets from the theory of evolution, he may well find that comfort to be unfulfilling over time. So I have hope that he also may one day acquire that most precious commodity as well.
.
Many are still searching for their callings. MDCCLXXVI seems to me to be one of those. He seems to find fault with both theology and evolution. I suspect that he has not yet totally made up his mind and that he may eventually reject either God or evolution as he toys with both arguments, first embracing one and then the other. I think that his ambivalence is due to his rather weak concept of God. Not that his concept is weak but that he thinks that God is rather weak. If God really has all the limitations on his power that MDCCLXXVI thinks, eventually he may come to the conclusion that He really isn’t God at all.
.
Of all the skeptical posters, I was most touched by Elementalvirago. Like most people who reject religion, she was brought to her cynicism not by the concept of God or the bible but by people who professed a faith but did not live it. I wonder how many have had their faith and hope dashed by the misdeeds of those who claim to have faith. Still, all is not lost as she has not rejected theism and she may well be lead to the truth someday as long as she doesn’t abandon the search.
.
DrTalk, Chelleandlou and Why_the_fuss, your callings seem clear. Keep up the good fight. We often seem to be toiling in vain but the Gospel has a power of its own. We may never be present for the reaping but take comfort, there will be a harvest.

“’All scripture is given by inspiration of God’ 2 Tim. 3:16”
So you’re going to cite scripture to defend the validity of scripture? Even a true believer should recognize how that argument is circular. Furthermore “inspiration” does not mean “dictated by God, and protected from corruption”.
I believe in God, I use scripture to study and as reference material. But I also recognize the facts that nurse pointed out: scripture was written by man. It is subject to corruption, misinterpretation, mistranslation, editing and so on. I do not believe scripture is protected from malice or carelessness by divine intervention. Through prayer and contemplation I ask God for understanding. Reading scripture is an interactive process; the Bible is not an encyclopedia written by the hand of God. Study should begin with scripture, not end with it. And, for the umpteenth time, you can’t logically use scripture to defend your position in a debate with a person who rejects the validity of scripture to begin with. All parties must agree on the axioms before higher level arguments can be made, otherwise your debate is fruitless and your arguments unprovable.

whythefuss, you still haven't explained why you brought your father into this debate.

Your claims about a murdered child are unsympathetic in that you would allow a fantasy to mitigate your grief.

The emptiness you attribute to me is the emptiness within yourself that your trying to fend off with pathetic fantasy.

You and some of the others here attempt to use logic to defend your "faith" and when you fail you then condemn logic.

Yes, mankind is doing the killing that your god can prevent but does not. Therefore he is doing the killing in the internal "logic" of your own beliefs. Your "faith" stunts the thought processes that would allow you to realize this.

I'm asking questions, I'm not badgering. If you feel badgered it's because you attempt, without success, in taking part in a debate for which you are ill-equipped.

Are you serious? I've answered all the questions. It is you and your ilk that are running, in one way or another, from reasonable questions.

MD- The proposed theory of 12-21-2012 states that the poles are going to shift because of the line up of the sun, moon, and earth. That there will be a gravitational shift of sorts. Thrown into this equation is a black hole in our universe that will also be lined up with the moon, earth and sun. There is some speculation if we wil be pulled through that black hole.

Scientists have stated that Alaska used to be the equator. That this gravitational shift has happenned before, without the black hole.

Constantine I was a ruler with an agenda. He caused wars in the name of Christianity. "In this conquer," was inscribed on a cross that he led into battle. Yet, Constantine I did not receive his baptism until his death bed. He devoted himself to taming the "barbarians". But I am sure he was inspired.

DrTalk:
I never said that I believed it personally- I was simply explaining what the theories are. The nature of your question made it obvious you didn't really get it (and I'm not sure you do yet- my explanation was not very good).
.
I should have been more clear about one thing: you can talk about "before" the big bang, sort of. There are a wide variety of ideas about what might cause a singularity to exist and what would cause it to collapse into duality. It could be that the universe is like a yo-yo, eternally collapsing and expanding in a cycle of big bangs and big crunches, it could be that the singularity was the result of a difference in potential between two dimensional manifolds, it could be that our universe exists inside a black hole from another universe.
.
These are just a few theoretical examples of events that would lead up to the formation of a singularity. They would not, however, technically be "before" the big bang because they are in no way connected to our time-space. The “before” the big bang exists outside our universe, and so we have no way to determine what it was. We can only talk about time in the context of our own universe. An event outside that time-space has no dimensions in common with our own, including time, so words like "before" are without context and therefore meaningless.
.
The singularity believed to be central to a black hole, for example, is not actually in the black hole- it exists completely outside and disconnected from our universe. Information cannot be exchanged between a black hole singularity and it's host universe because there is no connection between the two. Time-space is infinitely warped around the area of a singularity to the point that it is effectively broken at that point (if you took calculus in school, a singularity is {f(x)=y/x |x=0}. In mathematics we say it is undefined. In cosmology we call it a singularity).
.
You see then why the answer to your question is yes. There are plenty of candidates for the source of the singularity that spawned our universe, none of which is necessarily a prime mover, or an original mover.
.
Again, these are all just theories, none of which are mine or ones that I endorse.

Dr.Talk, you explained nothing about the suffering of the innocent.

And, if you say everything has a cause, you can't pretend to be logical by abandoning your proofless claim once you conjure up the idea of god. That "reasoning" corresponds with the entire irrationality of religions which shows itself in full extremis with the institutionalized rape of children in the church and people flying planes into buildings.

What about the free eats at the event? will there any? And will I have to throttle that dreaded street gaing: Thugs for Jesus?

Mark: 16:15-18, Acts 2:1-4 should I go on??

I am sure I can find a Bible Verse that justifys speaking in tongues and playing with snakes..does that mean it is inspired by God?

My belief in God would comfort me in the event I had a child that was killed tragically. It wouldn’t be easy but my belief that I will see them again gives me comfort.
+
Your belief would leave you empty and hateful. What good could you possibly find in an event like that based on your beliefs?
+
I am guessing it is beyond your comprehension because you can define it with human logic.
+
You continue to reference killings in the name of God, remember that it is mankind that is doing this. I am certainly not planning on killing anyone who doesn’t believe what I do. It misses the point of what God wants from us.
+
Hey instead of badgering people to continue to answer your questions because they don’t give you the answer you want to hear, maybe you could do us all a courtesy and answer our questions.

nurse4u,
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God" 2 Tim. 3:16

Checkmate, DrTalk

gazettefan:"Then what is it that caused the universe (you didn't state what the cause is in your conclusion)"
.
I mentioned it in a previous post: God. But then you'll ask: "Who created God?" But that's not logical. Everything WHICH HAS A BEGINNING has a cause. God did not have a beginning; He's eternal. Therefore no one created God.
.
I tried to explain death and suffering to you, but I guess I'm not getting through. I'm still inviting you to this discussion on the night of March 8th, 6:00pm.

Good points, nurse4u.

DrTalk, let's say your major premise (first premise of your syllogism) is true (but only for the sake of argument re: things theoretically outside the universe). Then what is it that caused the universe (you didn't state what the cause is in your conclusion).

Also, would the mentality of your bible citations console you if your child was murdered by someone or killed by a natural disaster? Give a plain realistic answer.

Drtalk-You are taking scripture from a Gospel of the New Testament to prove that your beliefs are superior and Right.

The New Testament was written by men and gathered by Constantine to gain support for Constantine's beliefs. He selected what Gospels were included. Is Constantine God?

The author of the Gospel of John is up for debate. John the Apostole was an uneducated fisherman. The Gospel of John differs vastly from that of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

nurse4u:"Who are we to say that this religion is right and that one wrong?"
.
Were not the ones to say. God already decided that for us. "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6.
.
I also agree with you that we should treat everyone with respect. Lev 19:18, Matt. 22:39

With regards to the scripture and the Bible-I personally feel it is used as a tool to shape a person's path and to help set some ground rules of good will towards mankind. Without the belief of a higher power, I think man would commit even more heinous acts towards one another.

I think the Holy Wars are unjustifiable. How can you kill in the name of ANY God/Allah/Jehovah? The Ten Commandments specifically state "Thou Shall Not Kill."

The New Testament was gathered and put together by Constantine (@ 332 CE)to provide collaboration of his beliefs. Some of the Gospels such as The Gospels of Mary, Philip & Thomas put women on the same level as men. These were excluded because they did not tie the New Testament up in a nice little bow. These Gospels actually contradicted what the other Gospels were teaching, yet at the same time Mary and Thomas were given key insights to Jesus' teachings. Mary is now portrayed as a born again prostitute-yet there is not any direct evidence of that. The Gospel of Philip states that "Jesus used to kiss Mary often on the..." And we are left to speculate because that part of the text is lost. Other religions would have you think that women are beneath men and not as capable as men. Well, Hilary sure shot that one out the ballpark. Bill had no clue.

I digress. My point is- the Ancient Greeks had the right idea. They believed in gods and goddesses that had faults just like we do. Female goddessess were just as important as the male gods.

Native Americans, Hindus and Gnostic religions believe in finding that higher power within oneself.

Who are we to say that this religion is right and that one wrong? We may be all wrong. So isn't it enough that we treat one another with respect and dignity and try to help others that are less fortunate?

Just as humans have adapted to the ever changing earth, so has religion. And bacteria.

gazettefan,
Regarding my 8:26 post, let me use the following syllogism:
1. Everything WHICH HAS A BEGINNING has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.