What Clinches Your (Un)belief for You? [Archive I]

CaptainOfOuterSpace

December 22, 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by factfinder
So, is this the type of 'silence' that clinches a system of unbelief for some of you? For the theists out there, do you perceive Christ in your life? Can you quantify this perception in any way, shape or form?

The unbelief-clincher for me has to be the strength-of-belief factor between rationality and religion. In a system of rationality, evidence, and facts, the strength of belief is the highest it can logically be. In a system of faith and lack-of-evidence, the strength of belief is necessarily much lower.

Have you ever seen a group of scientists hold hands and sing songs about conservation of momentum, or pray that "may Newton's second law be true for today and every other day"? With the possible exception of Bill Nye or Beakman, that's a definite "no." This is an indication of how strong fact-based beliefs are.

As for people of religion, praying and singing songs is all they do. This must therefore be an indication of the weakness of faith-based beliefs. These beliefs are so weak, in fact, that they must be constantly reinforced by frequent church attendance, everyday prayer, counseling from the pastor, etc. If any religious person is truly convinced about her beliefs, would she really need to attend church anymore?

As for the "silence" you speak of, why would you expect air to talk back to you?

I WANT a personal relationship with Jesus ChristWell then you're simply waiting for someone to tell you what you want to hear.

Bookman

December 22, 2003, 01:38 PM

I came to atheism long before I had ever heard any of the sophisticated philosophical arguments for either the theistic or atheistic positions. I can remember the moment at which doubt about the existence of god first entered my thoughts and in that moment I became an atheist.

I was going through the catechumenal process as a young man in the Episcopal church, so religious matters were on my mind more than usual. I was on a camping trip (unrelated to the church) and looking up at the night sky.

It is hard to describe exactly how my thoughts ran; it was more an image than an argument but I will attempt as best I can to put it into words. At that moment, I could see in my mind's eye the universe both if there were a god and if there were not. I could clearly see the difference between a universe with god in it -- a universe that was aware of me, and one in which miracles could happen. Contrasted with that I could see a universe with harder edges -- a universe which was a slave to physical laws and was indiffrerent to my existance.

I then realized that I had in my life experienced no event which made the former explanation superior to the latter.

Even now that I have more knowledge about the intellectual history of atheism, and can attach words like naturalist and materialst to my position, the basic truth still remains: I'm an atheist because it seems more reasonable to me. Despite that, I can see the other side of the argument and can accept that for other people the universe makes more sense to them with a god or gods in it.

Bookman

vagrant

December 22, 2003, 01:42 PM

The whole god concept just doesn't make sense.

The very concept of a omnipotent, omniscient god is rife with paradox. The idea that it could be omnibenevolent given the reality we live in is simply laughable.

Add to that the complete and utter lack of any sort of evidence, well you know where this is going...

Godless Wonder

December 22, 2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
[B]Are you reading Christ-on-a-stick's testimony (still in progress)?

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71265
Seconded. Also, Kendall Hobbs "Why I am no longer a Christian" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kendall_hobbs/no_longer.shtml) is worth reading.

I think for me, in reading the Bible it was so plainly obvious to me that it was mostly just made up, that it just depressed the hell out of me that such a large chunk of humanity would fall for it. I mean, I know that most everyone aren't idiots, most people are reasonably intelligent . . . yet they believe this? How? They can't, they just can't!, but they do . . . How? (A rhetorical question only, please don't try to answer it in this thread.)

It struck me that if there really were a god, he ought to be able do one hell of a lot better a job of conveying his message than the Bible.

I should also add, I've never been a theist, so in reading the Bible, I read it as if it were any other book, except with the possibility in mind that the words just might be magical and transform my mind into that of a theist. Didn't work out that way at all though.

The "fools for Christ's sake" Paul mentions remained fools to me, I'm just too wise in the ways of the world, I guess. :) (Paul's transparent insistence on rejecting reason, and that God made his way appear foolish to purposefully trick the wise (essentially that's what he says), and his admitting to lying for the purpose of converting people just disgusted me completely, btw. He might as well say, "this is all bullshit," which it was already blatantly obvious to me that it was anyway.)

factfinder

December 22, 2003, 02:11 PM

There's no one reason that cinches it for me. Overall, it is simply the poor quality of the arguments for the theistic position that convinces me. Even if you got a "answer" from Jesus, how would you know it was him?

You just would. The divine creator should know how to flick our switch. Right?

Well then you're simply waiting for someone to tell you what you want to hear.

Oh, absolutely!

Honesty is one thing about Christianity that I know is meritorious.:D

Are you reading Christ-on-a-stick's testimony (still in progress)?

Yes, I just finished a perusal. It's a sad story of disappointment (I can relate) & written from an honest perspective. I will keep readin' as the story unfolds.

It strikes me odd that, as humans, we find the prospect of god interesting (whether it be in the form of faith or criticism). Almost always, those that talk about it, talk about it with passion (positively or negatively). This, in of itself, is proof of nothing, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Barcode

December 22, 2003, 03:03 PM

As for people of religion, praying and singing songs is all they do. This must therefore be an indication of the weakness of faith-based beliefs. These beliefs are so weak, in fact, that they must be constantly reinforced by frequent church attendance, everyday prayer, counseling from the pastor, etc. If any religious person is truly convinced about her beliefs, would she really need to attend church anymore?

:notworthy If a bunch of atheists met every week and sang " there is no God ad nauseum ", wouldn't believers consider us a rather insecure crowd? At least, any reasonable person would question why we need to reinforce our ideas by repeating inane statements over and over.

I rarely talk about my non-belief in everyday life -- it's just not relevant. And yet I see too many believers esposuing their views too loudly -- right now it's "remember to live your life for Jesus and how Jesus wants at Christmas blah blah" from one or two people.

Sounds like they need to reaffirm their own need/desire/whatever reason to believe, than convince anyone else.

To answer the original question: -- there's nothing there whenever I've "prayed" (well I would be apt to call it focusing, reflection ...). The *only* thing I have ever heard is my own voice, and my own thoughts. I can't help but wonder if many Christians are inventing messages from Jesus, or reading too much into normal things -- maybe they confuse their own intuition with "revelations" from "the holy spirit."

Whatever. It's something entirely alien to me, and I don't buy the lines about "not looking hard enough" or "needing to open my heart" -- if studying the flippin' subject for years isn't looking hard enough, well golly gosh, maybe I'll just need to suspend everything I've learnt and rely upon "faith."

If God exists, I guess he doesn't want to talk to me. I think I'll go sit in the corner and sulk at being left out of the club :(

Jamie_L

December 22, 2003, 03:14 PM

My path to atheism was long and involved many different questions and issues. But I think there is something that finally clinched it. It's similar to what Bookman said. It wasn't an instant realization (though it did feel like it), but a growing awareness that built up gradually, until one day I gave in and admitted to myself that I no longer believed in god.

What clinced my unbelief:
The realization that the universe is much more consistent with the conclusion that there is no god. Everything makes much more sense within that context. Add god into the equation, and it seems you have to start inventing all manner of explanations and exceptions to make the observed universe mesh with the notion of an all-powerful diety. It's like comparing the old circular solar system model built with epicycles upon epicycles to the more modern model of eliptical orbits.

I'll say it again: everything just makes more sense. It's that simple. All the other reasons that brought me to atheism, fit nicely into the picture. My understanding of the universe becomes a cohesive whole. It just rings true.

To quote Richard Dawkins:"the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

Jamie

theoscholar

December 22, 2003, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Barcode
:notworthy If a bunch of atheists met every week and sang " there is no God ad nauseum ", wouldn't believers consider us a rather insecure crowd?

Worship comes out of a heart that truly values the object of worship. It's not because we are trying to chant until we believe it ourselves.

braces_for_impact

December 22, 2003, 04:58 PM

Worship comes out of a heart that truly values the object of worship. It's not because we are trying to chant until we believe it ourselves.

But why? When I was a Christian and I used to worship, I used to picture god in heaven, basking in the praise and worship.

Why?

Does he desire it? What does an all powerful being want with the worship of such puny, flawed creatures? Does he need it? Why would a perfect creature need anything? Really, what is the point?

Is worship of Him for our sake? Seems like debasement, and loss of dignity to me. Why worship Him for our sake? Because he's superior? Certain people are better at some things than I am, I don't worship them. Where exactly is the boundry that determines when you should worship? How powerful do you have to be to qualify as one to be worshipped? Is he worshipped as creator? Again, why? I don't worship my parents.

It made perfect sense when I was a Christian, but it doesn't now.

As far as a clincher for unbelief, there wasn't one in my case. I just looked everwhere in a search for knowledge, trying to understand why some people were atheists. There are tons of reasons why I came to the conclusion I did. It's more like how all the parts of my knowledge came together.

Valdemar

December 22, 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by theoscholar
Worship comes out of a heart that truly values the object of worship. It's not because we are trying to chant until we believe it ourselves.

When I was a Christian I worshiped because I was told that's what Christians do, and I only did it in church. I believed in god, but I just didn't see the value of worshiping an omnipotent being. What was he getting out of it anyway? And don't say it was for me, because as I said before, I was already a believer.

stupiddrummer

December 22, 2003, 05:57 PM

I would personally agree with Valdemar. I went to church on Sundays and prayed at school because that's what I was taught I should do. I "loved" God in the same way that you "love" siblings as a child. You do because you know you should, but you don't want to have to go around telling them all of the time. Instead, they piss you off and steal your toys (I'm not sure where the metaphor ends, there...). But I've always had questions that my parents, my teachers and the church could not answer in a satisfactory way.

Having gone through school with these doubts, yet learning more and more about the scientific aspect of existence, I just forgot about God. I still went to church, I got about 95% in my religious studies course at school (yay me :D ), I did everything that was expected of me. But I didn't truly believe any of it. More to the point, I stopped caring whether it was true or not.

I couldn't possibly pinpoint exactly when this change occured. It is like when I stopped believing in Santa Clause. I played along with my parents each year, leaving whisky and cookies (since I knew, I always made sure my dad got good whisky instead of milk-I think he appreciated it) out on Xmas eve, looking surprised by all the presents on Xmas day, not punching my dad everytime he did the same damn "in my day, we got an apple, an orange and a shiny new penny" crap etc. But I didn't believe (unfortunately, my parents believed that I believed, so believed that I believed in Santa till I was about 14!:rolleyes: ).

And once my confirmation took place when I was 16, I "outed" myself as an atheist and have never looked back.

Also, being a scientist, I find it hard to accept religion on any grounds. Scientific theories explain the world, as does the Bible. But when evidence crops up to refute a theory, the theory is revised or changed until it fits the observed. Not so with the Bible. At the end of the day, they are words on a page, written by man. Not the words of a great and all powerful creator.

stupiddrummer

southernhybrid

December 22, 2003, 06:02 PM

The concept of god simply stopped making sense. I was in no way a serious intellectual when I lost my faith.

Have you ever investigated the other world religions? You might find something you like better than Xianity or it may help you reach a more informed decision about your beliefs. I think people with very strong beliefs that change their beliefs too fast sometimes have problems adjusting. Learning about other religions and seeing how similar they were helped me a lot when I left the Xian religion. There's no need to be in a rush to find truth. It can be one of life's pleasant journeys. That's how it was for me. By the time I came to the end of the journey, I was more than ready to accept my findings.

Up until now, you've probably been indoctrinated as to what to believe. Now you can have the freedom to look at all the options totally free of the influence of others. How can that be anything but a positive?

Space Chef

December 22, 2003, 07:27 PM

This isn't what lead to my unbelief, but just something that's always on my mind when I read/think/whatever about religion.

(FYI: I'm only talking about the Abrahamic God here)

If God existed/was real/whatever, why would he be so weak?

What's the whole deal with the garden of eden? Why didn't he just stop Adam before he made him? And the whole Islamic story of creation is ridiculous. I used to be afraid of Islam, like, what if it was true? But then I read the Islamic creation story. Don't believe Muslims who say that their story of creation is perfectly in accord with the scientific evidence. That's only western Muslims. Here's a link to a literal (literal interpretation of the Quran and hadith/sunna) interpreation: link (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/adam2.html)

Anyway, as far as god(s) in general, I don't disbelieve in them. I'm agnostic, but only concerning theistic, anthropomorphic deities.

Singularity

December 22, 2003, 07:35 PM

My lack of belief in standard theistic fact claims is a product of the lack of compelling or even remotely supportive evidence for the veracity of these claims. My state of disbelief is not really "cinched" in that it is a dynamic state. I may encounter evidence tomorrow that requires me to alter significantly my stance on these claims. Atheism is not an absolute, static state of disbelief. Any atheist that states he knows that God does not exist is as large a fool as the theist that states, based on faith, that God does exist or even assumes a priori that God exists and then searches for proof for the negative fact claim.

Hazel-rah

December 22, 2003, 07:37 PM

What clinched my unbelief was realizing that there was nothing in the universe that could only be explained by the existence of a god.

After wading through twenty years of religious schooling and all the labyrinthine arguments I was given to make God (or a god) the ultimate answer to everything, I realized everything was so much simpler to explain without a god than with one.

Big fan of the Razor, me.

Leah

December 22, 2003, 07:53 PM

If you read the old testament carefully you will find that god appears a very impulsive, extreme, temperamentful and revengeful creature. (unfortunaltey I still got not bible, so I can't actually give you the books and paragraphs to look at, but...)

-He punished Moses severely for claiming the water out of the rock had been his doing (Moses was not permittet to enter the promised land. After another 40 years of humble obedience he was at least granted to see the promised land from a distance).
- He made the yews walk in circles for 40 years (to the promised land) just because they complained and seeked other gods.
- He took pleasure in the death of firstborns to achieve what he called 'justice'
- On one occasion he had two non-married stebbed while having sex.
-- he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sexual habbits
etc.

Yet, that same god is nowadays watching day in and day out woman being raped, little children being raped, some to death, some to eternal nightmares. And he coudn't give a damn.
He watches preachers preach his word and raping little children after church-preaching.

That just doesn't fit.
If that god of the Jews was still existant (that is, if he ever had been), than judging by the way he used to be, he could not watch all this.
He could not watch little chidren praying to him in utter fear for help and just lean back and say: " But day and hour will come like a thief in the night." or "Sorry, but for a short while I let the devil rule, before the end will come".

Sorry, but if that god was existant, I'd be delighted to spit on him. He truely had made man in his image then, just that god was even more evil than mankind.

Smidlee

December 22, 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Godless Wonder
Seconded. Also, Kendall Hobbs "Why I am no longer a Christian" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kendall_hobbs/no_longer.shtml) is worth reading.

also you want to read about Judas Iscarot. He had a great testimony . He was a preacher and even knew Jesus personally. he performed many miracles and fully followed Jesus. He even cared a lot for the poor. but he also deconverted ( his followdisciples would have never guessed) because it was just stupid for Jesus to die on the cross when He could be King. Of course Judas would helped him to take care the needy.;)

jafosei

December 22, 2003, 08:06 PM

So, is this the type of 'silence' that clinches a system of unbelief for some of you?

The silence you speak of didn't clinch my deconversion, but it was a part of the journey.

I never made a big deal of my faith; it was a deeply ingrained part of me, and I thought it silly to make big noises about it. Left at that, my faith would probably be with me still.

Others around me, though, would often make a big deal of the 'personal relationship'. When I was part of a committee that was seeking a new pastor for the church, one of the congregation asked us if we felt we had been "led by God" to the person we had chosen. I honestly couldn't understand the question (we had been chosen based on theology, experience, and an interview, and he seemed like a good match for our congregation), though I tried to answer it.

Other things like that occurred from time to time, and I was confused. I didn't think God spoke directly to people, yet around me others kept claiming that he was. Unfortunately, he sometimes 'spoke' to them about things in such a way that they made poor life choices. They never seemed to notice the bad choices they made. They made many good choices as well, but there wasn't anything about those choices that seemed different from the choices people make every day. They seemed to have a hit-to-miss ratio similar to the non-christians I knew, for the most part, and to the christians that didn't claim to 'hear' God.

So the silence was part of it for me; not that I expected a conversation or even direct signs, just that others seemed to think that there should be something more, and there wasn't. When I learned more about the way the brain works and the type of perceptual errors and processing errors that commonly occur, I started to see a reasonable answer to other people's ideas of God speaking to them.

As others have said, the 'clincher' for me was realizing that the world made sense on its own; what didn't make sense to me was imposing an over-arching design or purpose on the whole thing. As I see it now, things just happen. And that's okay by me.

schu

December 22, 2003, 08:32 PM

No evidence, no belief.

abe smith

December 26, 2003, 10:40 AM

What clinches my unbelief is the pontless brutal meaningless god-forsaken MURDER of the six-year-old girl called "Lisa Steinberg"; and the (same-sort) of murders done to millions of innocents. Fortunately I am not obliged to run around this racetrack any more times; I spit on your theist assertions, and leave the scene.

Family Man

December 26, 2003, 11:02 AM

You just would. The divine creator should know how to flick our switch. Right?

Or you could talk yourself into believing that your switch was flicked. Right?

Queen of Swords

December 26, 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Leah
He made the yews walk in circles

Sorry, Leah, but when I first read this, I thought you were talking about Ents.

For me, one of the many clinchers was the inability of the bible to answer my questions, followed by the attempts of apologists to fill in those gaps. For instance, in the E/C forum, we once asked how the Ark was lighted. A creationist replied, "Fireflies."

If the book isn't going to hold up under thought and probing - and if such questioning is discouraged or pronounced unhealthy - it's a sure sign that the religion isn't for me.

atheist_in_foxhole

December 26, 2003, 11:35 AM

The Holocaust, AIDS, Ebola, asteroid impact craters, earthquakes that kill 10,000 people in the middle of the night (like last night in Iran), the huge tumor that killed my devout grandfather etc.

BruceWane

December 26, 2003, 11:37 AM

I never really had belief. The closest I ever was was in childhood, when it was a question - "Is there a god?" - that I dismissed once I had learned enough to be satisfied that my knowlege of the evidence was sufficient.

I suppose the real clincher is the fact that the supposed "evidence" for the existence of god has changed so much over the centuries. Not all that long ago, the bible was taken quite literally by a very large percentage of christians. We're talking 100~200 years, which is a short period of time even on the timescale of a young earth creationist. Nowadays, it's kinda rare to find a person who attributes rain and snow to "god's will". And of course, the definition of "sin" has changed drastically......where once it was sinful to eat shellfish and work on the sabbath, you've now got a code that is pretty much limited to very basic moral principles - and we can witness the readjustment of attitudes about sexual sins as it occurs.

But basically what this viewpoint boils down to is looking at the god of the past and looking at the god of the present and asking "What has changed? Has GOD changed? Or have the spaces that god fits conveniently into changed?".....of course, god being a god and all, it couldn't be that god has changed, and thus all the things that are said in the bible should still be valid. But they have largely been liberally re-interpreted a few times over......the inevitable conclusion is that god and religion is an invention of man, and it continues to be re-invented to serve the purposes of it's inventor.

And all this is just in reference to the current thing called "god" in western culture.........when you look at all the different religions/gods in the current world, and back over history, at all the old religions and gods that became obsolete and are now myths, you see a definite pattern emerging.

Heard anyone praying to Zeuss lately? How about Ra? How about Jupiter? How about ???.......etc....

The real clincher is that these historical and philosophical indicators of a mythical god are in such abundance before you even begin to consider the scientific mountain of evidence.

Pouye

December 26, 2003, 11:31 PM

"the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

Yet you, Mr. Richard Dawkins, can observe, meditate and muse about this universe!

Humans do NOT have "precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless."

In fact, everything about us is opposite of such statements about the universe. That I can wonder about the amazingly awesome universe contradicts this statement if I am supposed to be a product of it! (Let any honest atheist agree!!!)

To be honest, there is nothing which "clinches" my belief, because I readily admit (and accept) that I need faith to believe in God. I live in the borderlands of between belief and unbelief (as factfinder admits). I am a learner and seeker of the truth.

How did such a universe as Dawkins described "produce" moral beings of intelligence enough to question and observe it's meaningless self?

Rock

Infiel

December 27, 2003, 12:35 AM

How did such a universe as Dawkins described "produce" moral beings of intelligence enough to question and observe it's meaningless self?

He actually describes some of this in his book: "The Selfish Gene".

Queen of Swords

December 27, 2003, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Pouye
Yet you, Mr. Richard Dawkins, can observe, meditate and muse about this universe!

I see no property inherent in the universe that prevents people from observation, meditation and musing. If you see one, please point it out.

Humans do NOT have "precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless."

This is an unsupported assertion. The variety of beliefs and behaviors in the world is what I would expect to see if humanity evolved independently of a god. It doesn't fit in with one creator who once drowned everyone who didn't do what he wanted them to do.

That I can wonder about the amazingly awesome universe contradicts this statement if I am supposed to be a product of it! (Let any honest atheist agree!!!)

Apparently "honest atheist" = "atheist wiling to agree with non sequiturs". Can I define honest christians the same way?

How did such a universe as Dawkins described "produce" moral beings of intelligence enough to question and observe it's meaningless self?

Meaningless doesn't mean devoid of energy, lacking in chemical compounds or having only one or two hours in which to produce planets on which life could subsequently evolve. The lack of cosmic purpose in the universe has nothing to do with scientific principles.

Pouye

December 27, 2003, 01:37 AM

Meaningless doesn't mean devoid of energy, lacking in chemical compounds or having only one or two hours in which to produce planets on which life could subsequently evolve. The lack of cosmic purpose in the universe has nothing to do with scientific principles.

We weren't talking about scientific principles... we were looking at a metaphysical quote from Richard Dawkins which was trying to prove that since the universe looks (through an observers eyes) as not designed and without purpose (assumptions) that we must be the same, which is illogical reasoning, since we humans look very designed (look at sex and reproduction, for instance) and purposeful.

Think about it and call me in the morning.

Rock

ps. If one were on the moon looking through a telescope back to earth (expecting to find no purpose or design in the universe), what conclusions could you rationally make to explain the amazingly complex life systems in front of your eyes?

Queen of Swords

December 27, 2003, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by Pouye
We weren't talking about scientific principles...

You mean the question "How did such a universe as Dawkins described "produce" moral beings of intelligence" wasn't asking for a scientific answer?

we were looking at a metaphysical quote from Richard Dawkins which was trying to prove that since the universe looks (through an observers eyes) as not designed and without purpose (assumptions) that we must be the same, which is illogical reasoning, since we humans look very designed (look at sex and reproduction, for instance) and purposeful.

I don't see humans as designed. If you think the reproductive system is well designed, why is the female urinary tract so short, leading to an increased risk of UTIs? Why do fertilized eggs implant themselves in the Fallopian tubes sometimes, leading to ectopic pregnancies?

The universe doesn't look designed and neither does the human body. Any purposes that humans have are those that humans or human societies give to them, rather than purposes handed down from high.

Think about it and call me in the morning.

Think about it and meet me in the Evolution/Creation forum if you want to discuss this, because I'd rather not derail this thread any further.

ps. If one were on the moon looking through a telescope back to earth (expecting to find no purpose or design in the universe), what conclusions could you rationally make to explain the amazingly complex life systems in front of your eyes?

One word : evolution. Read up about it, or start a thread in the E/C forum. Amazing complexity does not automatically equal Goddidit.

MollyMac

December 27, 2003, 11:15 AM

What Clinches Your (Un)belief for You?
My appendix.

Ojuice5001

December 27, 2003, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by BruceWane

I suppose the real clincher is the fact that the supposed "evidence" for the existence of god has changed so much over the centuries. .... Nowadays, it's kinda rare to find a person who attributes rain and snow to "god's will".

I do.

But basically what this viewpoint boils down to is looking at the god of the past and looking at the god of the present and asking "What has changed? Has GOD changed? Or have the spaces that god fits conveniently into changed?"

Neither. Well, some spaces are gone, but the important thing is that the gods affect the course of events on Earth. And every chance process is an opening where a god can influence things, and decide that they should happen in one way and not another.

of course, god being a god and all, it couldn't be that god has changed, and thus all the things that are said in the bible should still be valid.

Not quite. There's a new "most influential god" every thousand years or so in the West. And although the gods themselves don't change, the world changes, and therefore the relationship of the gods to the world changes with it.

Heard anyone praying to Zeuss lately? How about Ra? How about Jupiter? How about ???.......etc....

[/B]

I pray to Jupiter, and the Roman goddess of the past (Postverta), every night.

Howard

December 27, 2003, 12:04 PM

President Bush
Governor Schwarzenegger
Attorney General Ashcroft

Of course, such things could make one believe in satan

Gawen

December 27, 2003, 02:02 PM

After reading through this thread, it amazes me to see how many people I can relate to. Everyone that has posted has said something I can personally aggree with.

Truth prevails. Life, death, truth; no power can keep it back. And since we are doomed to know the truth, let us grow a love for it. It is of no avail to cry or become angry over lost illusions, to long for vanished dreams, or pretend, or to call to the departing gods to come back. A people who fear the truth can never be a free people. If what I will now say is the truth, is there any good reason why I should not say it?
I appeal to the mature, not to the child mind. I appeal to those who have cultivated a taste for truth, who are not easily scared, and follow to the end truth's leading. The multitude is ever joined to its idols. I speak to the discerning few. An ordained preacher will command a hearing in the name of God, or in the name of the Bible. He does not have to satisfy those that listen to him about the reasonableness of what he preaches. He is God's mouthpiece, and no one may disagree with him. He can also invoke the authority of the church to enforce acceptance of his teaching.

The only way I may command your respect is to be reasonable. You will not listen to me for God's sake, the Bible's sake, for the love of heaven, or the fear of hell. My only protection is to be rational, to be truthful. In other words, the preacher can afford to ignore common sense in the name of Revelation. But if I depart from it in the least, or am caught once playing fast and loose with the facts, I will irretrievably lose my standing.
To challenge the mind (and heart) is difficult, especially where it concerns what one believes is the truth.

So what went wrong with my �faith�? Here follow some of my misgivings about religion.
 Too many hideously objectionable teachings, e.g., the damnation of even unevangelised unbelievers.
 Anne Frank, the famous Jewish girl who wrote the diaries and died at Auschwitz certainly knew of Christianity, but she never responded to the Gospel, never accepted Jesus as her savior (if we can trust those diaries). Rather she expressed her belief in mankind and Judaism. One writer called her "a humanist to the bone." My inescapable conclusion: that the next thing she will know, after the acrid scent of cyanide in the Nazi death camp, will be the proceedings of Judgment Day - and the stern face of a god who will cast her into eternal fire.
Meanwhile, Hitler, Mussolini and Franco of Spain -- who (despite their crimes) did happen to believe Jesus was God and Lord -- will go to heaven.
 I discovered the word "obedience" was used in sermons much more often than "love".
 I know people whose fanatical obsession with religion had left them empty unthinking shells of human beings, devoid of personality.
 The closed and bloody-mindedness and intellectual suicide of Creationism and other forms of literal fundamentalism.
 I encountered the phenomenon of the modern Urban Myth and realized that it is human nature to want to see meaning in everything (like portraits of the Virgin in oddly shaped breadrolls.) �There must be something more", (meaning supernatural), goes this vague argument. Not if you have the courage to look around you.
 Political and social conservatism of the church and its laity: the selfish emphasis on "personal salvation" to the exclusion of building a better world.
 The Church's fixation with sex--- if only that was paralleled by an interest in denouncing selfishness, greed and injustice.
 Biblical inconsistencies, atrocities, vulgarities and precepts. (Once I had seen for myself the obvious "seams" in the putting together of the scriptures by the early writers, I could never again accept the Bible as the Holy inerrant Word of God)
 Televangelists. (No further comment required.)
 The outlandish claims of pseudo-scientists and out-right liars for faith healing techniques and metaphysical implements (such as pyramids, magnets, etc.)
 And finally, last but not the least, my own freethinking reason.

Sedim

December 27, 2003, 02:34 PM

<<<What clinches your un/belief?>>>

It's two things for me, really. The first is that the religioust texts I've read, are all patently ludicrous. I am constantly appalled and astounded that people actually take those books seriously and even shape their lives according to them. I'm supposed to fall down and worship a genocidal megalomaniac, who later "let Himself be sacrificed" to change laws He Himself had made. And oh by the way this "perfect being" who created me made me all fucked up, and knows I'm all fucked up, but will condemn me to eternal damnation unless I beg Him for forgivness and ceaslessly praise Him for all His goodness and mercy (even though He's responsible for my fucked-up state in the first place). Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

The second thing is, the utter lack of evidence of an actual diety of any sort. You cannot claim the Holy Texts, as proof of what the Holy Texts say. Every drop of Holy Text ink ever printed, was printed by humans. Specifically, humans with a vested interest in the continued function and profitability of their organization, the support of which just happens to be mandated by the very Holy Text they're promoting. Hmmm....seems pretty convenient to me.

spinoza

December 27, 2003, 03:09 PM

Gawen:

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

trendkill

December 27, 2003, 06:37 PM

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html

Truth prevails! Life, death, truth -- behold, these three no power can keep back. And since we are doomed to know the truth, let us cultivate a love for it. It is of no avail to cry over lost illusions, to long for vanished dreams, or to call to the departing gods to come back. It may be pleasant to play with toys and dolls all our life, but evidently we are not meant to remain Children always. The time comes when we must put away childish things and obey the summons of truth, stern and high. A people who fear the truth can never be a free people. If what I will say is the truth, do you know of any good reason why I should not say it? And if for prudential reasons I should sometimes hold back the truth, how would you know when I am telling what I believe to be the truth, and when I am holding it back for reasons of policy?

In the discussion of this subject, I appeal to the mature, not to the child mind. I appeal to those who have cultivated a taste for truth -- who are not easily scared, but who can "screw their courage to the sticking point" and follow to the end truth's leading. The multitude is ever joined to its idols; let them alone. I speak to the discerning few.

There is an important difference between a lecturer and an ordained preacher. The latter can command a hearing in the name of God, or in the name of the Bible. He does not have to satisfy his hearers about the reasonableness of what he preaches. He is God's mouthpiece, and no one may disagree with him. He can also invoke the authority of the church and of the Christian world to enforce acceptance of his teaching. The only way I may command your respect is to be reasonable. You will not listen to me for God's sake, nor for the Bible's sake, nor yet for the love of heaven, or the fear of hell. My only protection is to be rational -- to be truthful. In other words, the preacher can afford to ignore common sense in the name of Revelation. But if I depart from it in the least, or am caught once playing fast and loose with the facts, I will irretrievably lose my standing.

Quotes from M. M. Mangasarian's The Truth About Jesus: Is He A Myth? (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html) (1909)

Haven't read the whole thing, but the vignette at the beginning with the ancient Greek man in a modern Christian church is a great illustration of the subjective nature of religious 'truth'.

Pouye

December 27, 2003, 07:25 PM

Anne Frank, the famous Jewish girl who wrote the diaries and died at Auschwitz certainly knew of Christianity, but she never responded to the Gospel, never accepted Jesus as her savior (if we can trust those diaries). Rather she expressed her belief in mankind and Judaism. One writer called her "a humanist to the bone." My inescapable conclusion: that the next thing she will know, after the acrid scent of cyanide in the Nazi death camp, will be the proceedings of Judgment Day - and the stern face of a god who will cast her into eternal fire.

this load of crap? Or did you come up with this on your own?

I'm a Christian, and I believe very possibly that Anne Frank will spend eternity with the God she adored. It is obvious that your picture of God is flawed (and unbiblical)... As far as the rest of the people you mentioned, God is a just judge...

Rock

Asha'man

December 27, 2003, 09:05 PM

There was nothing in particular that clinched my unbelief, but folks have already mentioned most of the parts of the picture.

One missing piece: the thousands of other invented gods that I began to learn about.

When you start to study ancient Egypt and Roman cultures, you can't help but notice the abundance of mythological gods. Each one is clearly invented to explain a piece of nature that man did not have the tools to understand, or to provide emotional comfort and an illusion of control over fate. It's so obvious that it barely needs saying: man invents gods in his own image.

Then I took a 2nd look at the Bible. The Christian God is just obviously the same as all the other gods, a fabrication born out of ignorance and superstition.

BruceWane

December 27, 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Pouye
this load of crap? Or did you come up with this on your own?

I'm a Christian, and I believe very possibly that Anne Frank will spend eternity with the God she adored. It is obvious that your picture of God is flawed (and unbiblical)... As far as the rest of the people you mentioned, God is a just judge...

Rock

Err.....Eh?

Isn't the defining trait of "christianity" the belief that you must accept jesus as your saviour in order to enter heaven in afterlife?

Thus the designation "christ-ian" and not "god-ian".......

lpetrich

December 27, 2003, 09:19 PM

Pouye:
Yet you, Mr. Richard Dawkins, can observe, meditate and muse about this universe!

So what? And think of this, Pouye:

It's one thing to celebrate adaptations as evidence of beneficient design. But when one realizes that many adaptations are at cross-purposes, one wonders how many designers the Earth's biota must have had -- if any at all.

At a doctor's office I recently visited, I saw a National Geographic article about zebras, and I noticed in it a picture of a female lion chasing some zebras. I thought it over:

Lions are excellently adapted for catching zebras.
Zebras are excellently adapted for escaping lions.

Furthermore,

Lions have to be good at catching their prey, or else they would starve.
Zebras have to be good at escaping their predators, or else they would get eaten.

Predator-prey and parasite-host relationships are often chained. Here is a simple example I once assembled; zebras and lions are comparable to deer and wolves here:

Grass
Deer
Wolves
Fleas
Wolbachia bacteria
Bacteriophages

Related by:

Deer eat grass
Wolves eat deer
Fleas suck wolves' blood
Wolbachia bacteria live inside of fleas' cells
Bacteriophages induce bacteria to make more copies of them

But:

Grass has phytoliths, tiny silica grains that abrade teeth.
Deer have big cheek teeth for grinding up grass.

Deer have forward-to-sideways-pointing eyes and ears, because wolves can approach them from any direction.
Wolves have forward-pointing eyes and ears, because that's the direction in which they approach deer. They also have teeth that are convenient for cutting and slicing meat.

Wolves scratch themselves to get rid of fleas.
Fleas have mouthparts that can pierce skin, enabling them to suck blood.

Fleas have an immune system that attacks wayward bacteria.
Wolbachia bacteria hide inside of fleas' cells, thus avoiding fleas' immune systems.

Bacteria have "restriction enzymes" for snipping up stray nucleic-acid strands, like bacteriophage genomes.
Bacteriophages imitate their hosts' genetic material, inducing their hosts to make copies of them without snipping them up.

Now think of what purposes must underlie all these adaptations.

Gawen

December 27, 2003, 09:36 PM

Thanks Trendkill, I couldn't for the life of me remember who wrote that. M. M. Mangasarian. I only have a piece of what I hear is a very large missive. I will have to check out that link.

Pouye: If all that you can come up with is the Anne Frank thing out of all I said, then perhaps your "picture of God is flawed"? I do not judge a person for their beliefs unless the belief makes them attack me in some way. I judge the belief itself. And I find Xtianity faulty. Believe what you will. But don't judge me for my lack thereof. And as far as I'm aware of, Jews are not allowed in Christian heaven......yet.

So, while I am quite content to judge religions, I am just as content in knowing that no Gods judge me.

Oxymoron

December 27, 2003, 09:48 PM

The fact that religions are ten-a-penny, and all claim sovereignty of the truth over all the other ones yet disagree violently on key issues. The Abrahamic squabble deserves special mention because the same text gives rise to Judaism (no messiahs), Xianity (Jesus, definetely the messiah) and Islam (Mohammed, definitely the messiah).

It is a sobering thought that simple geographic separation is all that differs one who straps tefilin to his body and mumbles for hours on end, one who straps C4 to his body and blows the first guy up, and one who straps dildos on in private and calls everyone else sinners in public. Of course, no stereotyping is intended :D.

The Holocaust is also a good'un. Of the Jews (and others) who survived, I am surprised how anyone can still think there is a Sky Daddy looking after them; and for everyone else who believes, anyone with half a brain must surely question their own beliefs in the face of it ("what if I were THIS wrong - how could I know?"). Of course, denial is a central component of the religious mindset, so along their merry way they bumble...

lpetrich

December 27, 2003, 10:03 PM

To add to my previous posting, there is evidence for conflicts inside a species, such as male lions killing their rivals' cubs. There's some video of that at http://www.lionresearch.org/ This is consistent with Dawkins's concept of the "selfish gene", but not with some "good of the species" concept. A male lion who kills rivals' cubs gets to have more cubs than one who doesn't -- no matter how much trouble it is for the female lions.

Pouye:
Humans do NOT have "precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless."

It is clear to me that if the major events of evolution were designed, then the designing involves cross purposes. Even our anatomy contains evidence of that, like having both predator/parasite features (digestive system) and prey/host features (immune system).

Also, there are lots of cases of "design" that might best be described as kludges -- and even blunders. What great purpose does the human appendix serve, other than to provide employment for doctors who remove inflamed appendixes? It can be removed without any apparent ill effects; consider the case of Presidential daughter Jenna Bush, who had had an appendectomy -- and who seems to be in very good health.

And consider how our circulatory system forms -- it starts out in a very fishlike configuration, then gets reorganized. Is that any reasonable way to install plumbing? The heart starts out as two-chambered, like a fish's, then becomes three-chambered, like an amphibian/reptile's, and then four-chambered. A process which is sometimes not properly completed, resulting in a "Blue Baby".

Vertebrate retinas have the "wrong" orientation; their neurons are in front of their photoreceptors, requiring a "blind spot" for those neurons to pass through to the brain. Squid/octopus retinas have the "right" orientation, however.

Etc.

diana

December 27, 2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Pouye
I'm a Christian, and I believe very possibly that Anne Frank will spend eternity with the God she adored. It is obvious that your picture of God is flawed (and unbiblical)... Hi, Rock. While I admire Christians who are compassionate enough to refuse to accept some of the more distasteful conclusions of their faith, I question your leap from "I believe" and "possibly" to "your picture of God is flawed (and unbiblical)." When you make a statement such as that, you just left the graciousness of "I believe" in the dust.

I'm curious how you harmonize Rom 10:9-10 and Acts 8:37 with your belief system. I was under the impression that it is necessary to confess Jesus is lord to be saved. You're saying it isn't?

As far as the rest of the people you mentioned, God is a just judge...Of course, that's precisely what we're questioning here: just how "just" God supposedly is. Hence the Anne Frank example of a person who we have every reason to believe was young, innocent and pure of heart, but just didn't meet the criteria to be saved (as we understand them). That doesn't seem just to us.

Responding that "God is a just judge" is assertion only and quite misses the point of the discussion.

So what it comes down to is whether you have your own idea of what's "just" that you can rationally defend so you can look at the reported behavior and decisions of your own god the same way you'd look and judge the behavior of others' gods, or do you just accept without question that what is and has been done in "God's" name is automatically just?

What cinched my unbelief was a series of events, culminated in the Faith Catch 22. If adequate evidence exists to support any given conclusion, I cannot deny that conclusion and faith is unnecessary. If not enough evidence supports, I cannot accept that conclusion and faith is crucial. I cannot simply choose to believe a god exists (and voila!--I believe) than I can choose to believe I'm a billionaire and convince myself of that.

He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be condemned. I can't believe and the rules don't leave room for "he who tries to believe and feels guilty because he can't." Once I saw this problem in all its raw power, I decided that either a less-than-benevolent god or human con-artists were required to set up the rules so those who were most intensely driven to "make their calling and election sure"--those who took their religion with deadly seriousness, but were more interested in being right than proving they were right--would be the least likely to just accept what they were told (that is, have faith).

That day I decided I was finished feeling guilty and finished trying to convince myself of the truth of something (or being afraid to admit I simply didn't believe, more like).

If there is a god, and he did create me with a brain and requires me to shut it off or compartmentalize information in order to be saved, he's a right bastard and undeserving of my worship. There were many other reasons, but that was my turning point.

d

Gawdawful

December 27, 2003, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by theoscholar
Worship comes out of a heart that truly values the object of worship. It's not because we are trying to chant until we believe it ourselves. Maybe so, but chanting and singing and repetition are well known brain-washing techniques. Nothing better than regular repetition to instill a certain belief or behavior in a person.

From answers.google.com on brainwashing techniques: (http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=180553)
Conditioning:

�This consists of daily repetitious lecturing and instruction along a certain line of thinking, behaving, and being. If you go along with the "party" line, you are rewarded and if you don't, you are punished.�

Repetitive Music:

�Repetitive music will be played while the people come in for the
service. A repetitive beat, ideally ranging from 45 to 72 beats per
minute (a rhythm close to the beat of the human heart), is very
hypnotic and can generate an eyes-open altered state of consciousness in a very high percentage of people. And, once you are in an alpha state, you are at least 25 times as suggestible as you would be in full beta consciousness.�

Voice Roll Technique � Used by Hypnotists and some Lawyers (and preachers and evangelists I must add):

�A voice roll can sound as if the speaker was talking to the beat of a metronome or it may sound as though he were emphasizing every word in a monotonous, patterned style. The words will usually be delivered at the rate of 45 to 60 beats per minute, maximizing the hypnotic effect.�

Warren

parkdalian

December 27, 2003, 11:19 PM

What clinches it now is thinking about all the various beliefs that exist in even one religion. Unless you become a moot deist, believing in God generally opens the door for all these other beliefs. Prayer, miracles, soul, afterlife, heaven, hell, creationism, a man-god etc. While theism makes those things possible, it does not necessarily follow that if God exists, other Christian beliefs must be true.

So many of those associated God-beliefs make no sense.

Why is it decided at death whether we go to heaven or hell? What is so important about a short finite mortal life that decides our fate for eternity?

And if our short finite mortal life is so important, how fair is it that some live long and some live short lives? People do die at all ages, in a distribution predicted by chance, socioeconomic factors and natural aging. Imagine taking a final exam with some students getting 60 minutes, others getting 2 minutes.

Why all these precise requirements to get to heaven for people that are raised in Christian society and yet billions, living and long dead never hear of those requirements?

Why pray if God knows all?

Why are modern miracles so restrained (eg. cancer remissions) while epic miracles occur in the ancient OT Bible?

It's the absurdity of all the "other stuff" that convinces me.

Pouye

December 28, 2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Gawen
Thanks Trendkill, I couldn't for the life of me remember who wrote that. M. M. Mangasarian. I only have a piece of what I hear is a very large missive. I will have to check out that link.

Pouye: If all that you can come up with is the Anne Frank thing out of all I said, then perhaps your "picture of God is flawed"? I do not judge a person for their beliefs unless the belief makes them attack me in some way. I judge the belief itself. And I find Xtianity faulty. Believe what you will. But don't judge me for my lack thereof. And as far as I'm aware of, Jews are not allowed in Christian heaven......yet.

So, while I am quite content to judge religions, I am just as content in knowing that no Gods judge me.

I just wanted to address this point. Do I have that right? Or must I address every point that everyone makes on this forum? And if I do not address your every point, does that mean my reasoning is flawed?

You said:

QUOTE]And as far as I'm aware of, Jews are not allowed in Christian heaven......yet.[/QUOTE]

You nor I know who is allowed in heaven. The Bible makes this clear. Yes, Jesus is the "Door" (Judge), but if you will notice, everywhere the Bible talks about judgment day, it centers around DEEDS. Actions... and especially actions toward other people, as in this verse:

�Not all people who sound religious are really godly. They may refer to me as �Lord,� but they still won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The decisive issue is whether they obey my Father in heaven. On judgment day many will tell me, �Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.� But I will reply, �I never knew you. Go away; the things you did were unauthorized.�
Matthew 7:21-23

Obey what?:

"So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.�
John 13:34

�Do for others what you would like them to do for you. This is a summary of all that is taught in the law and the prophets."
Matthew 7:12

And referring to the day of judgment:

�Then these righteous ones will reply, �Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?� And the King will tell them, �I assure you, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!�

These verses tell me that God judges the heart and the actions which spring from the heart. It also tells me that some people are going to be surprised that they will be considered "heaven worthy". They were just loving people in practical ways and showing by their actions that they loved God.

"But if anyone has enough money to live well and sees a brother or sister in need and refuses to help�how can God's love be in that person? Dear children, let us stop just saying we love each other; let us really show it by our actions. It is by our actions that we know we are living in the truth, so we will be confident when we stand before the Lord, even if our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."
1 John 3:17-20

Speaking to the Pharisees, Jesus said:

�But what do you think about this? A man with two sons told the older boy, �Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.� The son answered, �No, I won't go,� but later he changed his mind and went anyway. Then the father told the other son, �You go,� and he said, �Yes, sir, I will.� But he didn't go. Which of the two was obeying his father?�
They replied, �The first, of course.�
Then Jesus explained his meaning: �I assure you, corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the Kingdom of God before you do." Matthew 21:28-31

As far as Jews (or anyone else) being allowed into the "Christian heaven", that is not for anyone to decide but God. The famous verse used is:

"And then he told them, �Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone, everywhere. Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned."
Mark 16:15-16

The above verse does not address those who haven't heard the Gospel. It also does not address the issue of presentation. If I hand some dude (heaven forbid!) a Chick gospel tract and then walk away thinking, "Well, he knows the Gospel now, so if he doesn't believe it he will be condemned!"

I do not believe that God is going to say on judgment day to that dude, "Ah hah! Do you remember your one chance, that cheesy little Chick tract? To hell with you, pal! (Presses button which opens up the trap door in the floor...)"

This is why I believe it is important to not only present a clear Gospel message, but to live out true Christianity in relationships with others. The Bible says that Christians are ambassadors. We are representatives of Jesus. I believe God will judge the hearts of men and women based on what they did with what they had. If some Joe Blow only heard a half-baked "gospel" message once when he was 12, of course God (if He is just) will not put him in the category of those who "refused to believe". To refuse to believe something means you need to have had a case presented well enough to have had a chance to believe it. That is precisely why I cannot say with confidence YOU will not be in heaven. (But would you want to spend eternity with God? Would you enjoy worshipping Him? If you answer, "no" to these questions, then God will not force you to be with Him...)

Nobody will be banished from the presence of God who would have rather been with Him, IMHO.

Jesus' life example shows me the proper perspective. He didn't condemn people who were truly seeking the truth; Instead He embraced them and this embrace drew people to Him -- especially those who the rest of society deemed unworthy to be loved. That shows me that I might be surprised who will enter the Kingdom of God. Besides, the Bible tells me to keep my mouth shut about it:

"And I assure you that the time is coming, in fact it is here, when the dead will hear my voice�the voice of the Son of God. And those who listen will live. The Father has life in himself, and he has granted his Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge all mankind because he is the Son of Man. Don't be so surprised! Indeed, the time is coming when all the dead in their graves will hear the voice of God's Son, and they will rise again. Those who have done good will rise to eternal life, and those who have continued in evil will rise to judgment. But I do nothing without consulting the Father. I judge as I am told. And my judgment is absolutely just, because it is according to the will of God who sent me; it is not merely my own."
John 5:25-30

Who am I to judge?

Rock

4God

December 28, 2003, 03:10 AM

what clinched my belief?

arguments like " a just god wouldn't let this happen" never appealed to me. They seemed very egotistical. In other words, if there was a god he/she/they had every right to do whatever they wanted to do. He(sticking with He, but you get the point) was the Creator, I am the Created. I could challenge what I did not understand, but ultimately my questions were relatively meaningless if there indeed was a god.

If you hate your father, does that make Him less real? No. If your father kills your mom, sister, brother, etc...does it make Him less real? So for me, AIDs and other atrocities weren't signs there wasn't a god, but could be signs that god wasn't that cool of a being.

In fact, i think this is a very unscientific way of looking at things, but in many ways religion is.

Next, I realized that God should supercede/confound human logic. It tends to reason that something created is of higher complexity than that which is created. Please do not confuse this with reproduction, but in a strict sense creation- from scratch no less. So, if I could see things that I couldn't(and man(science) had no answer for, then that also suggests there is a god. Though, I was well aware that 2000 years ago, many things were attributed to the supernatural which can clearly be deemed natural. That's where the personal relationship with God came. I wanted to learn more about Him, not about how I relate to Him, but Him as a being. What makes him tick.

Finally, i wondered if science could answer all the questions I had. "why am i on this glob of dirt?" "how did I get here?" "what is my purpose for being here?" Everytime i tried to come to a conclusion that didn't involve god I was left empty and disappointed-confused mostly. Something seemed to be missing. God answered that for me and I have not felt empty since. As the movie Jerry Maguire says "you complete me." When I found God I was completed.

hmm, but what was the clincher? I don't think there was one specific event and factfinder as i disagree with most here, I think God is leading you to Him and I will pray for you.

God bless.

Gawdawful

December 28, 2003, 03:43 AM

Hey Pouye (Rock)!

Are you a minister? Your posts sound a lot like sermons to me. In fact, I know a few ministers that could take lessons from you.

Warren, Okie

lpetrich

December 28, 2003, 03:52 AM

4God:
arguments like " a just god wouldn't let this happen" never appealed to me. They seemed very egotistical.

???

Think of this way -- if a god cares that people believe in One True Religion, down to believing in the fine details of its creed, then why doesn't that alleged entity put Its foot down on people who believe in all the religious falsehood that has been purveyed? Why haven't Catholics heard a booming voice coming out of the sky telling them that they are idolators who worship saints as if they were deities?

And on the subject of intelligent design, I have had over 20 years of practice in being an intelligent designer, so don't accuse me of being unable to evaluate designs.

In other words, if there was a god he/she/they had every right to do whatever they wanted to do.

Which would mean that they do not have to be omnibenevolent -- and could even be very evil.

He(sticking with He, but you get the point) was the Creator, I am the Created.

Pure question-begging.

\If you hate your father, does that make Him less real? No. If your father kills your mom, sister, brother, etc...does it make Him less real?

Your father still exists, but is very bad.

Finally, i wondered if science could answer all the questions I had. "why am i on this glob of dirt?" "how did I get here?" "what is my purpose for being here?"

Ask your two human parents why they decided to bring you into existence.

jafosei

December 28, 2003, 12:44 PM

arguments like " a just god wouldn't let this happen" never appealed to me. They seemed very egotistical.

And the idea that an omnipotent and omniscient God loves you (yes, you!) and wants an individual relationship with you, this doesn't seem egotistical? Billions and billions of people now alive and dead, and He still wants a personal relationship with you, and it's not egostistical?

I don't mean to sound harsh, but human thinking tends towards the egotistical in most things. The idea that someone will come and save us from this misery and bring us to eternal reward is all about us.

So, if I could see things that I couldn't(and man(science) had no answer for, then that also suggests there is a god. Though, I was well aware that 2000 years ago, many things were attributed to the supernatural which can clearly be deemed natural.

I find this comment curious; it seems like a contradiction. You argue that not understanding means there's a God, and then acknowledge that many things that people didn't understand in the past (which would have been proof of God in your argument) are now better understood and weren't really evidence of God at all. The conclusion I would draw from that last statement is that the things we don't understand now will likely be understood in the future, and thus aren't valuable as evidence for God.

As you stated earlier, though, "In fact, i think this is a very unscientific way of looking at things, but in many ways religion is." So perhaps this view won't appeal to you either.

diana

December 28, 2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by 4God
I could challenge what I did not understand, but ultimately my questions were relatively meaningless if there indeed was a god.True. Your questions are therefore just as meaningless if there isn't, as well. So all we've ascertained is that your questions are meaningless, yes? What does this prove, though?

If you hate your father, does that make Him less real? No. If your father kills your mom, sister, brother, etc...does it make Him less real? So for me, AIDs and other atrocities weren't signs there wasn't a god, but could be signs that god wasn't that cool of a being.You seem to be missing the point of Argument From Evil. My father never claimed to be omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent, so were I to point out that he lacks these qualities (evidenced by all the pain and suffering in the world), it would say nothing about his existence, per se--just that he doesn't have these qualities.

However, Gods is routinely defined by all three of these qualities. The fact that I cannot experience God with my senses (but I can see my father, and touch him, and smell him, and have independent verification that other people experience him, etc, which goes far toward establishing that he exists) suggests that perhaps God is not even there. As further argument, it is useful to point out that the characteristics that are routinely assigned to him (the omnis) are mutually exclusive, which means the very concept of God as we know it is flawed.

In fact, i think this is a very unscientific way of looking at things, but in many ways religion is.I'd be interested in hearing what ways you think religion itself is scientific, if any.

Next, I realized that God should supercede/confound human logic. It tends to reason that something created is of higher complexity than that which is created.Using the assumption that we are created and God created us quite begs the question if you're attempting to argue that God exists. You've assumed your conclusion in one of your premises.

So, if I could see things that I couldn't(and man(science) had no answer for, then that also suggests there is a god.No. It suggests there are things we don't yet have an explanation for.

But you've brought up an interesting point. What you're talking about here is called the God of the Gaps.

Though, I was well aware that 2000 years ago, many things were attributed to the supernatural which can clearly be deemed natural. That's where the personal relationship with God came. I wanted to learn more about Him, not about how I relate to Him, but Him as a being. What makes him tick.

If you look at the history of religion (including the ones you've probably learned as "myths"), you'll be forced to admit that, with each step science takes forward, the God of the Gaps is going out of business. People once thought an erupting volcano meant God was angry, for instance. Was this an argument for God? Or was it an ignorant attempt to explain why the mountain exploded?

Finally, i wondered if science could answer all the questions I had. "why am i on this glob of dirt?" "how did I get here?" "what is my purpose for being here?" Everytime i tried to come to a conclusion that didn't involve god I was left empty and disappointed-confused mostly. Something seemed to be missing. God answered that for me and I have not felt empty since. As the movie Jerry Maguire says "you complete me." When I found God I was completed.

I think it's the ultimate egotistism to assume that your questions must have a satisfying answer. You keep coming back to your belief in God because you aren't happy with what the evidence points to. The "real" answer must satisfy you. If is it unsatisfying to you, it must not be the right one.

That, my friend, is the epitome of egotism.

d