I am from the year 2522
- Thread starter chronohistorian
- Start date
Well, the samo, samo, seemingly liberal agenda.
>>911 is the emergency service number for america
the spanish railway bombing happened 911 days after september 11th.<<
Yes, to tell time is needed.
Since 2004 is a leap year, and Feb. 29th did happen,
the Spanish Railway Bombing was not 911 days after 9/11
but 912 days, since it is a leap year.
Always, never until further looking up on things should people assume that where someone gets the facts are always from the left side of somewhere, where no one really knows what they actually are talking about, except to add to the equation of dimensions and time its self. Well, back to something else.
>>911 is the emergency service number for america
the spanish railway bombing happened 911 days after september 11th.<<
Yes, to tell time is needed.
Since 2004 is a leap year, and Feb. 29th did happen,
the Spanish Railway Bombing was not 911 days after 9/11
but 912 days, since it is a leap year.
Always, never until further looking up on things should people assume that where someone gets the facts are always from the left side of somewhere, where no one really knows what they actually are talking about, except to add to the equation of dimensions and time its self. Well, back to something else.
JamesAnthony
Temporal Navigator
Hadn't noticed that... excellent.
So Chrono, what is the significance of 911 now??? Terrorists can't count? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
James
Irony. What a blatant lie! Not only is his english lousy, it's very very appalling and it looks like he didn't even pass High School/Seconday School here. You sound like you have a speech impediment. Think people, could have his government sent him here to exterminate him, never to let him return.
It's pretty ironic, I hate to repeat myself too. Didn't I jus quote in my previous post? God is real (for me and a few others), he lives, he's here and he's good. Just think, if he is good then what would our lives be? It would be so utterly boring without problems, we would be like lumps of flesh, sinless people waiting for our next meal, not waiting to face the next challenge in life. You might as well die instead, right? He gave you free will to believe in him, if not you would go to hell, yeah? All you have to is have faith and believe, in times of trouble. He does not require you to sacrifice, do daily rituals, kills or abstain from certain food! It's just so simple what's so hard about that, does it even affect 'free will'. He gave you this free will to believe, *snap* so there, you have the free will to believe. If you don't believe in God, why are you afraid of hell then? He does not make you drink blood, abstain from meat, torture yourself, do strange meditation exercises. All you have to do is learn his word, believe in him, have faith, say truthful prayers. I'm a Christian but I don't go church myself, that does not make me any different from others who go to church. It's very funny how you come up with excuses to push aside religion just because of this theories you have. Science is powerful, but it deceives.
"From the beginning, humans worshipped things. What makes it different today? Today, the world is under HUGE deception by the New Age, that oneself is god through psychadelic drugs, meditation, yoga and positive thinking, placebos and autosuggestion, psi phenomena. What makes it different is, Man is worshipping himself"
It's pretty ironic, I hate to repeat myself too. Didn't I jus quote in my previous post? God is real (for me and a few others), he lives, he's here and he's good. Just think, if he is good then what would our lives be? It would be so utterly boring without problems, we would be like lumps of flesh, sinless people waiting for our next meal, not waiting to face the next challenge in life. You might as well die instead, right? He gave you free will to believe in him, if not you would go to hell, yeah? All you have to is have faith and believe, in times of trouble. He does not require you to sacrifice, do daily rituals, kills or abstain from certain food! It's just so simple what's so hard about that, does it even affect 'free will'. He gave you this free will to believe, *snap* so there, you have the free will to believe. If you don't believe in God, why are you afraid of hell then? He does not make you drink blood, abstain from meat, torture yourself, do strange meditation exercises. All you have to do is learn his word, believe in him, have faith, say truthful prayers. I'm a Christian but I don't go church myself, that does not make me any different from others who go to church. It's very funny how you come up with excuses to push aside religion just because of this theories you have. Science is powerful, but it deceives.
"From the beginning, humans worshipped things. What makes it different today? Today, the world is under HUGE deception by the New Age, that oneself is god through psychadelic drugs, meditation, yoga and positive thinking, placebos and autosuggestion, psi phenomena. What makes it different is, Man is worshipping himself"
"If god was real do you think he would allow pain and suffering. If god is real then he is an evil hyocrite.
being evil because he allows disease and suffering.
being a hypocrite because he says you have free will but if you don't wortship him your going to hell-doe that sound like free will to you?"
Well, Brick, those are all old arguments. I'm actually looking for ones that people use in the future. For example, I can show you a line of reasoning from 2003, that's completely new. I'm sure that andvances in logic and empirical data do not end in 2003.
Now, you've said that in the future toilets spray water on your bum and then dry it. You've briefly described your space ships and how they supposedly work. Why can't you tell me about some new arguments against God? I'm sure I can understand them, even if they include some new technology.
By the way, what is the theory of everything? Is it the M Theory? How many dimensions are there? Are me living in a closed or an opened universe?
being evil because he allows disease and suffering.
being a hypocrite because he says you have free will but if you don't wortship him your going to hell-doe that sound like free will to you?"
Well, Brick, those are all old arguments. I'm actually looking for ones that people use in the future. For example, I can show you a line of reasoning from 2003, that's completely new. I'm sure that andvances in logic and empirical data do not end in 2003.
Now, you've said that in the future toilets spray water on your bum and then dry it. You've briefly described your space ships and how they supposedly work. Why can't you tell me about some new arguments against God? I'm sure I can understand them, even if they include some new technology.
By the way, what is the theory of everything? Is it the M Theory? How many dimensions are there? Are me living in a closed or an opened universe?
nicknack - yada yada yada. I don't want to turn this into a religious forum. I just have to pop your bubble.
20. Faith. Some Christians rely mostly or solely upon faith as the basis for their beliefs. However, the followers of any other religion could easily use the same argument.
Some Christians claim that Christianity is the only religion that offers salvation apart from works. Even if that claim is true, there is no automatic, direct correlation that can logically be made between uniqueness and truthfulness.
An old Christian war horse is the claim that if it one day turns out that Christianity is a false religion and we all become dust in the ground, Christians have nothing to lose believing in Christianity and everything to gain if the claims of Christianity are true. Such a claim makes no sense. Followers of other religions could easily make the same claim.
It is important to note that if intelligent design is a reasonable possibility, there is a very real danger for Christians. Just as the God of the Bible chose not to clearly reveal himself to millions of people for many centuries, a possible creator could exist who has chosen not to clearly reveal himself to anyone until after they die. Consider the following possible scenario: A somewhat benevolent, but also judgmental god created the universe. He has never clearly revealed himself to anyone. He will one day judge all people by their works and views. He will send all Christians to a version of hell who ever advocated colonization, slavery and the burning of witches, including advocates of many other crimes against humanity, whether or not they directly participated in such practices. He will also send all Christians to hell who rubber stamped all of the barbaric acts of killing committed by the God of the Old Testament, including God's killing of Ananias and Sapphira in the New Testament. Christians have only considered two possible scenarios, spending eternity in heaven or becoming dust in the ground. However, if intelligent design is a reasonable possibility, other possible scenarios deserve consideration.
Faith alone is not a popular concept among a large percentage of Christians who live in advanced Western nations, especially Christians who are well educated. The simple faith message advocated in the New Testament is beating a hasty retreat in advanced Western nations and has to a great extent been replaced with a faith plus evidence message.
17. Comfort. The real goal of Christians is not to find the truth that sets them free, but to find the comfort that will make them comfortable for all of eternity. Such a claim is easily proven. If it one day turns out that the Bible is false and that a comfortable eternal life is still available for everyone in varying degrees, courtesy of some powerful being, no Christian who has ever lived would turn down such an offer, especially if not accepting the offer would cause them to end up in an uncomfortable hell for all of eternity. Under such a scenario, Christians would simply consider their gullibility to be quite natural for humans and begin to enjoy a comfortable eternal life.
Although Christians are greatly influenced by coercive New Testament claims of reward and punishment, skeptics are not influenced by claims of reward and punishment, at least regarding their own world view. A skeptic believes that if he becomes a Christian and it eventually turns out that Christianity is a false religion, he will still end up in the same state that he would have been in had he not become a Christian. On the other hand, a Christian believes that if he becomes a skeptic and it eventually turns out that Christianity is a true religion, he will end up in hell. Coercive influences often cloud objective thinking. In addition, it is often not wise to ask an important question to a person who has a perceived vested interest in the answer. The followers of most or all religions perceive that they have a vested interest in their beliefs. As far as those people are concerned, all roads lead to eternal comfort.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Christians are attempting to use their mythical God to satisfy their desires for comfort, both physical and emotional, and for nothing else, especially eternal comfort, in a manner no different than a dog or a trained seal attempts to do tricks in order to receive a reward of food, some kind words and a pat on the back.
If you are a Christian, can you think of even a single desire that you have that is not related to comfort, either present comfort or future comfort, for yourself of someone else? Will you be honest enough to admit that if you one day find out that your beliefs are false, and a comfortable heaven is available from a being other than the God of the Bible, your conclusion at that time would be that the God of the Bible is replaceable, but the desire for eternal comfort is not replaceable?
Faith is cheap.
Taken from: www.askepticalapproach.com
20. Faith. Some Christians rely mostly or solely upon faith as the basis for their beliefs. However, the followers of any other religion could easily use the same argument.
Some Christians claim that Christianity is the only religion that offers salvation apart from works. Even if that claim is true, there is no automatic, direct correlation that can logically be made between uniqueness and truthfulness.
An old Christian war horse is the claim that if it one day turns out that Christianity is a false religion and we all become dust in the ground, Christians have nothing to lose believing in Christianity and everything to gain if the claims of Christianity are true. Such a claim makes no sense. Followers of other religions could easily make the same claim.
It is important to note that if intelligent design is a reasonable possibility, there is a very real danger for Christians. Just as the God of the Bible chose not to clearly reveal himself to millions of people for many centuries, a possible creator could exist who has chosen not to clearly reveal himself to anyone until after they die. Consider the following possible scenario: A somewhat benevolent, but also judgmental god created the universe. He has never clearly revealed himself to anyone. He will one day judge all people by their works and views. He will send all Christians to a version of hell who ever advocated colonization, slavery and the burning of witches, including advocates of many other crimes against humanity, whether or not they directly participated in such practices. He will also send all Christians to hell who rubber stamped all of the barbaric acts of killing committed by the God of the Old Testament, including God's killing of Ananias and Sapphira in the New Testament. Christians have only considered two possible scenarios, spending eternity in heaven or becoming dust in the ground. However, if intelligent design is a reasonable possibility, other possible scenarios deserve consideration.
Faith alone is not a popular concept among a large percentage of Christians who live in advanced Western nations, especially Christians who are well educated. The simple faith message advocated in the New Testament is beating a hasty retreat in advanced Western nations and has to a great extent been replaced with a faith plus evidence message.
17. Comfort. The real goal of Christians is not to find the truth that sets them free, but to find the comfort that will make them comfortable for all of eternity. Such a claim is easily proven. If it one day turns out that the Bible is false and that a comfortable eternal life is still available for everyone in varying degrees, courtesy of some powerful being, no Christian who has ever lived would turn down such an offer, especially if not accepting the offer would cause them to end up in an uncomfortable hell for all of eternity. Under such a scenario, Christians would simply consider their gullibility to be quite natural for humans and begin to enjoy a comfortable eternal life.
Although Christians are greatly influenced by coercive New Testament claims of reward and punishment, skeptics are not influenced by claims of reward and punishment, at least regarding their own world view. A skeptic believes that if he becomes a Christian and it eventually turns out that Christianity is a false religion, he will still end up in the same state that he would have been in had he not become a Christian. On the other hand, a Christian believes that if he becomes a skeptic and it eventually turns out that Christianity is a true religion, he will end up in hell. Coercive influences often cloud objective thinking. In addition, it is often not wise to ask an important question to a person who has a perceived vested interest in the answer. The followers of most or all religions perceive that they have a vested interest in their beliefs. As far as those people are concerned, all roads lead to eternal comfort.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Christians are attempting to use their mythical God to satisfy their desires for comfort, both physical and emotional, and for nothing else, especially eternal comfort, in a manner no different than a dog or a trained seal attempts to do tricks in order to receive a reward of food, some kind words and a pat on the back.
If you are a Christian, can you think of even a single desire that you have that is not related to comfort, either present comfort or future comfort, for yourself of someone else? Will you be honest enough to admit that if you one day find out that your beliefs are false, and a comfortable heaven is available from a being other than the God of the Bible, your conclusion at that time would be that the God of the Bible is replaceable, but the desire for eternal comfort is not replaceable?
Faith is cheap.
Taken from: www.askepticalapproach.com
amen nicknak
theres nothing wrong with faith. trying to disprove god to me or any anyone else who has faith in him is wasting your breath. keep it for the lost and confused.
when i ask you.."tell me what to believe" then you can preach to me what you will about religion.
thanks
theres nothing wrong with faith. trying to disprove god to me or any anyone else who has faith in him is wasting your breath. keep it for the lost and confused.
when i ask you.."tell me what to believe" then you can preach to me what you will about religion.
thanks
Every single religion relies on faith. Are they all true? What makes your religion better? Oh yeah, you do.
http://www20.brinkster.com/atheology/atheism_the_case_against_god_part_2_reason_vs_faith.htm
http://www20.brinkster.com/atheology/atheism_the_case_against_god_part_2_reason_vs_faith.htm
haha i never said my religion was better then anyone elses. i embrace all religions, im happy for anyone who has faith higher then themselvs.
since you enjoy bashing faith..heres a view of faith by one of americas greatest theologian and philosopher.. Jonathen Edwards-
And, in the text, the apostle observes how true religion operated in the Christians he wrote to, under their persecutions, whereby these benefits of persecution appeared in them; or what manner of operation of true religion, in them, it was, whereby their religion, under persecution, was manifested to be true religion, and eminently appeared in the genuine beauty and amiableness of true religion, and also appeared to be increased and purified, and so was like to be "found unto praise, and honor, and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christ." And there were two kinds of operation, or exercise of true religion, in them, under their sufferings, that the apostle takes notice of in the text, wherein these benefits appeared.
1. Love to Christ: "Whom having not yet seen, ye love." The world was ready to wonder, what strange principle it was, that influenced them to expose themselves to so great sufferings, to forsake the things that were seen, and renounce all that was dear and pleasant, which was the object of sense. They seemed to the men of the world about them, as though they were beside themselves, and to act as though they hated themselves; there was nothing in their view, that could induce them thus to suffer, and support them under, and carry them through such trials. But although there was nothing that was seen, nothing that the world saw, or that the Christians themselves ever saw with their bodily eyes, that thus influenced and supported them, yet they had a supernatural principle of love to something unseen; they loved Jesus Christ, for they saw him spiritually whom the world saw not, and whom they themselves had never seen with bodily eyes.
2. Joy in Christ. Though their outward sufferings were very grievous, yet their inward spiritual joys were greater than their sufferings; and these supported them, and enabled them to suffer with cheerfulness.
There are two things which the apostle takes notice of in the text concerning this joy. 1. The manner in which it rises, the way in which Christ, though unseen, is the foundation of it, viz., by faith; which is the evidence of things not seen: "In whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice." 2. The nature of this joy; "unspeakable and full of glory." Unspeakable in the kind of it; very different from worldly joys, and carnal delights; of a vastly more pure, sublime, and heavenly nature, being something supernatural, and truly divine, and so ineffably excellent; the sublimity and exquisite sweetness of which, there were no words to set forth. Unspeakable also in degree; it pleasing God to give them this holy joy, with a liberal hand, and in large measure, in their state of persecution.
http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/affections/religious_affections.html
since you enjoy bashing faith..heres a view of faith by one of americas greatest theologian and philosopher.. Jonathen Edwards-
And, in the text, the apostle observes how true religion operated in the Christians he wrote to, under their persecutions, whereby these benefits of persecution appeared in them; or what manner of operation of true religion, in them, it was, whereby their religion, under persecution, was manifested to be true religion, and eminently appeared in the genuine beauty and amiableness of true religion, and also appeared to be increased and purified, and so was like to be "found unto praise, and honor, and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christ." And there were two kinds of operation, or exercise of true religion, in them, under their sufferings, that the apostle takes notice of in the text, wherein these benefits appeared.
1. Love to Christ: "Whom having not yet seen, ye love." The world was ready to wonder, what strange principle it was, that influenced them to expose themselves to so great sufferings, to forsake the things that were seen, and renounce all that was dear and pleasant, which was the object of sense. They seemed to the men of the world about them, as though they were beside themselves, and to act as though they hated themselves; there was nothing in their view, that could induce them thus to suffer, and support them under, and carry them through such trials. But although there was nothing that was seen, nothing that the world saw, or that the Christians themselves ever saw with their bodily eyes, that thus influenced and supported them, yet they had a supernatural principle of love to something unseen; they loved Jesus Christ, for they saw him spiritually whom the world saw not, and whom they themselves had never seen with bodily eyes.
2. Joy in Christ. Though their outward sufferings were very grievous, yet their inward spiritual joys were greater than their sufferings; and these supported them, and enabled them to suffer with cheerfulness.
There are two things which the apostle takes notice of in the text concerning this joy. 1. The manner in which it rises, the way in which Christ, though unseen, is the foundation of it, viz., by faith; which is the evidence of things not seen: "In whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice." 2. The nature of this joy; "unspeakable and full of glory." Unspeakable in the kind of it; very different from worldly joys, and carnal delights; of a vastly more pure, sublime, and heavenly nature, being something supernatural, and truly divine, and so ineffably excellent; the sublimity and exquisite sweetness of which, there were no words to set forth. Unspeakable also in degree; it pleasing God to give them this holy joy, with a liberal hand, and in large measure, in their state of persecution.
http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/affections/religious_affections.html
First and foremost, you give me a source from a Christian theologian. I would really like to hear what he has to say about Satanism, Buddhism, Pantheism, etc. I bet it's not going to be the same feel good speech.
Which brings me to my next point. This is a feel good speech. Nothing more, nothing less. Yay Christ is good yay...we're all blessed and so on and so forth.
I like to equate faith in a supernarutal being with coffee. It's good, it gets you going, some people can do without it and live halthier lives.
What about all the bad stuff in the Bible? I don't see them mentioned anywhere in there. Yay Christ is good BUT he's also anti-family.
Jesus warns us not to love our parents or children too much. We have to make sure that we always love him (who we don't even know existed) more than our family. 10:37
Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you.--Judges 19:24
Lot and his daughters camp out in a cave for a while. The daughters get their "just and righteous" father drunk, and have sexual intercourse with him, and each conceives and bears a son (wouldn't you know it!). Just another wholesome family values Bible story. 19:30-38
God tells the Israelites to kill their family and friends for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf. 32:27-
If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, "thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death." If Bible-believers followed this one, they would have to kill many of their own family and friends. 13:6-10
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36
So, your approach is to basically take everything good and ignore the rest? Well, maybe I should be talking for you, and I'm sorry if I sound too arrogant at times. I understand that some people need to believe in something greater than themselves in order to function. They don't know what, but they believe. Maybe they don't want to be responsible for their lives. It's not their fault when something bad happens. It was meant to be...
Reason Versus Faith
1. - Clarifying the Issue
Confusion is the enemy of purposeful thought. Whether one is engaged in a process of problem solving, or of gaining new knowledge, or of drawing implications from present knowledge, or of directing one's actions, a lack of precision in one's thinking will undermine or completely sabotage the achievement of one's goal.
The purpose of abstract, philosophical thought is to achieve understanding. A philosophical argument is spurred by an intellectual disagreement, and the purpose of argumentation is to resolve this conflict by reaching a common understanding among the participants. A confused, muddled argument cannot attain this goal because it fails to specify the precise nature of the conflict. Whatever elements a confused argument may contain, it necessarily lacks one ingredient: clarity. Clarity&#8212;the precision of thought and communication&#8212;is the antidote for confusion; they cannot coexist. Where there is confusion, there is vagueness and the absence of definition.
If confusion is the enemy of purposeful thought, clarity is its closest ally. Specifying the precise nature of the problem to be solved is often a major contributing factor in arriving at a solution. It has been said, with considerable justification, that a question well-asked is half-answered. Applying this principle to the realm of philosophical disputes, we may say that a conflict well-defined is half-resolved.
In order fully to understand the nature of a philosophical conflict, one must grasp the fundamental differences that give rise to the conflict. One must investigate the basic issues and apply this knowledge to the disputed issue.
A debated subject is often a symptom, a surface manifestation, of a more basic underlying disagreement. Unless this area is explored&#8212;and unless some agreement is reached&#8212;the conflict will continue, while becoming repetitious and dull. The result is a kind of "intellectual atrophy," where the argument proceeds without significant progress, where no new material is introduced, and where the participants know beforehand that neither side will convince the other.
This "intellectual atrophy" is typical of the conflict between Christianity and atheism. Volumes are written on the subject of God, pro and con, but fresh material is rarely presented. The Christian presents the standard arguments for the existence of God, and the atheist presents the standard refutations of these arguments. The Christian responds with a flurry of counter-objections, and the atheist retaliates.
Meanwhile, the average bystander becomes confused and impatient. He has observed arguments, but he has not been told why these arguments are important. He has witnessed the disagreements, but he has not been presented with the basic conflicts underlying them. While this person may have absorbed a smattering of divergent theories and ideas, he lacks an overall perspective, a frame of reference from which to integrate and evaluate the particulars that have been thrust upon him. Consequently, he frequently dismisses the philosophical investigation of theism as too abstract, remote and irrelevant to merit his attention. He will leave philosophy to the philosophers; and, while they construct endless debates, he will rely on what he has been taught, or on what his friends believe&#8212;or on what his "common sense" and "intuitions" tell him.
Although some philosophers seem to have a vested interest in representing it as such, philosophy is not an esoteric discipline reserved for a select few. As with any specialized field, a detailed knowledge of philosophical issues requires concentrated study, but a basic grasp of the philosophical differences between theism and atheism is available to any person who cares to put forth some effort.
Many Christian laymen are contemptuous of philosophical objections to their belief in God. They may spurn philosophy as irrelevant, while claiming to believe not in "the God of the philosophers," but in "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Even if this distinction were valid, it would not change the fact that the Christian implicitly adopts many philosophical beliefs. By his belief in a supernatural being, the Christian commits himself to a metaphysical view concerning the nature of reality. By his belief in the unknowable, he commits himself to an epistemological view concerning the scope of human reason. By his belief in divine moral commandments, he commits himself to an ethical view concerning the foundation of moral principles.
It is the responsibility of the philosopher to identify the underlying assumptions of these commonly held beliefs. A clarification of basic issues is essential to any discussion of theism and atheism. The question of the existence of God is the tip of an iceberg; under the surface, there are crucial problems that must be solved.
Does the theist have reasons for his belief in God? If so, what are they? What is his evidence?&#8212;or, more importantly, what is the nature of evidence in general? What does the Christian mean when he claims to know of God's existence?&#8212;or, more importantly, what is the nature of knowledge in general? How do we acquire knowledge? How do we distinguish truth from falsity?
These and similar questions fall within the sphere of epistemology, the branch of philosophy which investigates the origin and nature of knowledge. Since the differences between a Christian and an atheist often narrow down to their different responses to the above questions, epistemology is the arena where the deciding battle must be fought.
The conflict between Christian theism and atheism is fundamentally a conflict between faith and reason. This, in epistemological terms, is the essence of the controversy. Reason and faith are opposites, two mutually exclusive terms: there is no reconciliation or common ground. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason.
Explicit atheism is the consequence of a commitment to rationality&#8212;the conviction that man's mind is fully competent to know the facts of reality, and that no aspect of the universe is closed to rational scrutiny. Atheism is merely a corollary, a specific application, of one's commitment to reason.
I will not accept the existence of God, or any doctrine, on faith because I reject faith as a valid cognitive procedure. The particular content or object of faith&#8212;whether it be gods, unicorns or gremlins&#8212;is irrelevant in this context. The statement, "I will not accept the existence of God on faith" is derived from the wider statement, "I will not accept anything on faith." Thus, explicit atheism is primarily an epistemological position: if reason is one's only guide to knowledge, faith is necessarily excluded. If theistic doctrines must be accepted on faith, theism is necessarily excluded. A rational man will be without theistic belief, and therefore atheistic.
While some versions of theistic belief may claim to operate only within the sphere of reason, it remains true that all versions of Christianity eventually appeal to the concept of faith. Through faith the Christian claims to transcend reason and gain knowledge inaccessible to man's rational capacity. Even those Christians who attempt to rationally demonstrate the existence of a supernatural being refuse to offer similar demonstrations of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the Resurrection, and other essential Christian beliefs.
Faith is the common thread running throughout the divergent approaches to Christian theism. The Catholic and the Protestant, the liberal and the fundamentalist, the existentialist and the Thomist&#8212;all must rely on the validity of faith as a means of acquiring knowledge. Faith is the epistemological underpinning of Christianity. If faith collapses, so does Christianity.
2. - The Attack on Reason
Immanuel Kant wrote that he "found it necessary to deny knowledge of God ... in order to find a place for faith." All advocates of faith are Kantians in this respect. In any defense of faith that one cares to examine, one will find an attack on reason.
Some Christians are openly hostile to reason (notably those sympathetic with existentialism). These Christians usually declare that reason is nothing more than an impersonal calculating device, a cold deductive faculty that cannot give meaning and substance to man's life. Faith, on the other hand, is "vital and indescribable"; it "partakes of the mystery of life itself. The opposition between faith and reason is that between the vital and the rational. ..." Christian faith "is not only faith beyond reason but, if need be, against reason."1
The Church Father Tertullian ( A.D. 150-225) stands out as a paradigm of the Christian antagonism to reason. In De Came Cristi he emphasizes the paradoxical nature of Christian belief.
And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible.2
Tertullian takes seriously the biblical promise that God "will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." "It is philosophy," Tertullian asserts, "that supplies the heresies with their equipment." He wishes "a plague on Aristotle" and poses the now famous question: "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens? ..."
After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation, after the Gospel no need of research. When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything else; for we begin by believing that there is nothing else which we have to believe...
My first principle is this. Christ laid down one definite system of truth which the world must believe without qualification. (3)
Tertullian's explicit advocacy of paradox is extreme even for Christianity, but his open assault on reason is by no means unusual. Many Christians freely admit the conflict between reason and faith and have declared war on reason. Martin Luther, to take a famous illustration, calls reason "the devil's bride," a "beautiful whore" and "God's worst enemy." "There is on earth among all dangers," writes Luther, "no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters which concern the soul and God. For it is more possible to teach an ass to read than to blind such a reason and lead it right; for reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed." According to Luther, "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God." (4)
This gross irrationalism is abhorrent to any person with a semblance of respect for logical thought. The conflict between reason and faith&#8212;carried to its extreme in the above examples-is the focal point of critical atheism. For the atheist, to embrace faith is to abandon reason. One atheist defines faith as "the commitment of one's consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof." (5) Another atheist writes that "Christian faith is not merely believing that there is a god.
It is believing that there is a god no matter what the evidence on the question may be."
"Have faith," in the Christian sense, means "make yourself believe that there is a god without regard to evidence." Christian faith is a habit of flouting reason in forming and maintaining one's answer to the question whether there is a god. (6)
Many Christians strenuously object to this portrayal of faith as unjustified or irrational belief. On the contrary, they claim that reason and faith are different ways of acquiring knowledge: both can arrive at truth, and neither contradicts the other. To argue that faith rests upon "inadequate evidence," or that faith "is the habit of the irrational or the nonrational" is "entirely unfaithful to the Scriptural and traditional teaching of Judaism and Christianity." (7) According to these Christians, the atheist, by representing faith as contrary to reason, is fighting a straw man.
It is true that many Christian apologists have striven to reconcile reason and faith: this was a dominant theme of the later Middle Ages, and it remains an important element of Roman Catholicism. It would be a mistake to attribute to all Christians the overt hostility to reason displayed by Tertullian. However, the historical attempts to reconcile reason and faith are beside the point. The crucial issue is: Have these attempts succeeded? Moreover, can any attempt at rapprochement possibly succeed? To both of these questions, the answer is an emphatic "no."
I am not merely arguing, as a matter of historical fact, that all attempts to reconcile reason and faith have failed. My position is stronger than this. I am asserting that all such efforts must fail, that it is logically impossible to reconcile reason and faith. The concept of faith itself carries a "built-in" deprecation of reason; and without this anti-reason element, the concept of faith is rendered meaningless. (Throughout this discussion, the term "faith" refers to a supposedly reliable method of acquiring knowledge. Any other notion of faith is irrelevant with regard to the existence of God and the truth of Christian doctrines.)
In the next two chapters we shall examine the nature of reason and the major theories of faith advocated by Christian apologists. The groundwork for these discussions is presented in the remainder of this chapter, where I defend the position that reason and faith are, and must be, irreconcilable.
http://www20.brinkster.com/atheology/atheism_the_case_against_god_part_2_reason_vs_faith.htm
Which brings me to my next point. This is a feel good speech. Nothing more, nothing less. Yay Christ is good yay...we're all blessed and so on and so forth.
I like to equate faith in a supernarutal being with coffee. It's good, it gets you going, some people can do without it and live halthier lives.
What about all the bad stuff in the Bible? I don't see them mentioned anywhere in there. Yay Christ is good BUT he's also anti-family.
Jesus warns us not to love our parents or children too much. We have to make sure that we always love him (who we don't even know existed) more than our family. 10:37
Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you.--Judges 19:24
Lot and his daughters camp out in a cave for a while. The daughters get their "just and righteous" father drunk, and have sexual intercourse with him, and each conceives and bears a son (wouldn't you know it!). Just another wholesome family values Bible story. 19:30-38
God tells the Israelites to kill their family and friends for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf. 32:27-
If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, "thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death." If Bible-believers followed this one, they would have to kill many of their own family and friends. 13:6-10
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36
So, your approach is to basically take everything good and ignore the rest? Well, maybe I should be talking for you, and I'm sorry if I sound too arrogant at times. I understand that some people need to believe in something greater than themselves in order to function. They don't know what, but they believe. Maybe they don't want to be responsible for their lives. It's not their fault when something bad happens. It was meant to be...
Reason Versus Faith
1. - Clarifying the Issue
Confusion is the enemy of purposeful thought. Whether one is engaged in a process of problem solving, or of gaining new knowledge, or of drawing implications from present knowledge, or of directing one's actions, a lack of precision in one's thinking will undermine or completely sabotage the achievement of one's goal.
The purpose of abstract, philosophical thought is to achieve understanding. A philosophical argument is spurred by an intellectual disagreement, and the purpose of argumentation is to resolve this conflict by reaching a common understanding among the participants. A confused, muddled argument cannot attain this goal because it fails to specify the precise nature of the conflict. Whatever elements a confused argument may contain, it necessarily lacks one ingredient: clarity. Clarity&#8212;the precision of thought and communication&#8212;is the antidote for confusion; they cannot coexist. Where there is confusion, there is vagueness and the absence of definition.
If confusion is the enemy of purposeful thought, clarity is its closest ally. Specifying the precise nature of the problem to be solved is often a major contributing factor in arriving at a solution. It has been said, with considerable justification, that a question well-asked is half-answered. Applying this principle to the realm of philosophical disputes, we may say that a conflict well-defined is half-resolved.
In order fully to understand the nature of a philosophical conflict, one must grasp the fundamental differences that give rise to the conflict. One must investigate the basic issues and apply this knowledge to the disputed issue.
A debated subject is often a symptom, a surface manifestation, of a more basic underlying disagreement. Unless this area is explored&#8212;and unless some agreement is reached&#8212;the conflict will continue, while becoming repetitious and dull. The result is a kind of "intellectual atrophy," where the argument proceeds without significant progress, where no new material is introduced, and where the participants know beforehand that neither side will convince the other.
This "intellectual atrophy" is typical of the conflict between Christianity and atheism. Volumes are written on the subject of God, pro and con, but fresh material is rarely presented. The Christian presents the standard arguments for the existence of God, and the atheist presents the standard refutations of these arguments. The Christian responds with a flurry of counter-objections, and the atheist retaliates.
Meanwhile, the average bystander becomes confused and impatient. He has observed arguments, but he has not been told why these arguments are important. He has witnessed the disagreements, but he has not been presented with the basic conflicts underlying them. While this person may have absorbed a smattering of divergent theories and ideas, he lacks an overall perspective, a frame of reference from which to integrate and evaluate the particulars that have been thrust upon him. Consequently, he frequently dismisses the philosophical investigation of theism as too abstract, remote and irrelevant to merit his attention. He will leave philosophy to the philosophers; and, while they construct endless debates, he will rely on what he has been taught, or on what his friends believe&#8212;or on what his "common sense" and "intuitions" tell him.
Although some philosophers seem to have a vested interest in representing it as such, philosophy is not an esoteric discipline reserved for a select few. As with any specialized field, a detailed knowledge of philosophical issues requires concentrated study, but a basic grasp of the philosophical differences between theism and atheism is available to any person who cares to put forth some effort.
Many Christian laymen are contemptuous of philosophical objections to their belief in God. They may spurn philosophy as irrelevant, while claiming to believe not in "the God of the philosophers," but in "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Even if this distinction were valid, it would not change the fact that the Christian implicitly adopts many philosophical beliefs. By his belief in a supernatural being, the Christian commits himself to a metaphysical view concerning the nature of reality. By his belief in the unknowable, he commits himself to an epistemological view concerning the scope of human reason. By his belief in divine moral commandments, he commits himself to an ethical view concerning the foundation of moral principles.
It is the responsibility of the philosopher to identify the underlying assumptions of these commonly held beliefs. A clarification of basic issues is essential to any discussion of theism and atheism. The question of the existence of God is the tip of an iceberg; under the surface, there are crucial problems that must be solved.
Does the theist have reasons for his belief in God? If so, what are they? What is his evidence?&#8212;or, more importantly, what is the nature of evidence in general? What does the Christian mean when he claims to know of God's existence?&#8212;or, more importantly, what is the nature of knowledge in general? How do we acquire knowledge? How do we distinguish truth from falsity?
These and similar questions fall within the sphere of epistemology, the branch of philosophy which investigates the origin and nature of knowledge. Since the differences between a Christian and an atheist often narrow down to their different responses to the above questions, epistemology is the arena where the deciding battle must be fought.
The conflict between Christian theism and atheism is fundamentally a conflict between faith and reason. This, in epistemological terms, is the essence of the controversy. Reason and faith are opposites, two mutually exclusive terms: there is no reconciliation or common ground. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason.
Explicit atheism is the consequence of a commitment to rationality&#8212;the conviction that man's mind is fully competent to know the facts of reality, and that no aspect of the universe is closed to rational scrutiny. Atheism is merely a corollary, a specific application, of one's commitment to reason.
I will not accept the existence of God, or any doctrine, on faith because I reject faith as a valid cognitive procedure. The particular content or object of faith&#8212;whether it be gods, unicorns or gremlins&#8212;is irrelevant in this context. The statement, "I will not accept the existence of God on faith" is derived from the wider statement, "I will not accept anything on faith." Thus, explicit atheism is primarily an epistemological position: if reason is one's only guide to knowledge, faith is necessarily excluded. If theistic doctrines must be accepted on faith, theism is necessarily excluded. A rational man will be without theistic belief, and therefore atheistic.
While some versions of theistic belief may claim to operate only within the sphere of reason, it remains true that all versions of Christianity eventually appeal to the concept of faith. Through faith the Christian claims to transcend reason and gain knowledge inaccessible to man's rational capacity. Even those Christians who attempt to rationally demonstrate the existence of a supernatural being refuse to offer similar demonstrations of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the Resurrection, and other essential Christian beliefs.
Faith is the common thread running throughout the divergent approaches to Christian theism. The Catholic and the Protestant, the liberal and the fundamentalist, the existentialist and the Thomist&#8212;all must rely on the validity of faith as a means of acquiring knowledge. Faith is the epistemological underpinning of Christianity. If faith collapses, so does Christianity.
2. - The Attack on Reason
Immanuel Kant wrote that he "found it necessary to deny knowledge of God ... in order to find a place for faith." All advocates of faith are Kantians in this respect. In any defense of faith that one cares to examine, one will find an attack on reason.
Some Christians are openly hostile to reason (notably those sympathetic with existentialism). These Christians usually declare that reason is nothing more than an impersonal calculating device, a cold deductive faculty that cannot give meaning and substance to man's life. Faith, on the other hand, is "vital and indescribable"; it "partakes of the mystery of life itself. The opposition between faith and reason is that between the vital and the rational. ..." Christian faith "is not only faith beyond reason but, if need be, against reason."1
The Church Father Tertullian ( A.D. 150-225) stands out as a paradigm of the Christian antagonism to reason. In De Came Cristi he emphasizes the paradoxical nature of Christian belief.
And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible.2
Tertullian takes seriously the biblical promise that God "will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." "It is philosophy," Tertullian asserts, "that supplies the heresies with their equipment." He wishes "a plague on Aristotle" and poses the now famous question: "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens? ..."
After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation, after the Gospel no need of research. When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything else; for we begin by believing that there is nothing else which we have to believe...
My first principle is this. Christ laid down one definite system of truth which the world must believe without qualification. (3)
Tertullian's explicit advocacy of paradox is extreme even for Christianity, but his open assault on reason is by no means unusual. Many Christians freely admit the conflict between reason and faith and have declared war on reason. Martin Luther, to take a famous illustration, calls reason "the devil's bride," a "beautiful whore" and "God's worst enemy." "There is on earth among all dangers," writes Luther, "no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters which concern the soul and God. For it is more possible to teach an ass to read than to blind such a reason and lead it right; for reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed." According to Luther, "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God." (4)
This gross irrationalism is abhorrent to any person with a semblance of respect for logical thought. The conflict between reason and faith&#8212;carried to its extreme in the above examples-is the focal point of critical atheism. For the atheist, to embrace faith is to abandon reason. One atheist defines faith as "the commitment of one's consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof." (5) Another atheist writes that "Christian faith is not merely believing that there is a god.
It is believing that there is a god no matter what the evidence on the question may be."
"Have faith," in the Christian sense, means "make yourself believe that there is a god without regard to evidence." Christian faith is a habit of flouting reason in forming and maintaining one's answer to the question whether there is a god. (6)
Many Christians strenuously object to this portrayal of faith as unjustified or irrational belief. On the contrary, they claim that reason and faith are different ways of acquiring knowledge: both can arrive at truth, and neither contradicts the other. To argue that faith rests upon "inadequate evidence," or that faith "is the habit of the irrational or the nonrational" is "entirely unfaithful to the Scriptural and traditional teaching of Judaism and Christianity." (7) According to these Christians, the atheist, by representing faith as contrary to reason, is fighting a straw man.
It is true that many Christian apologists have striven to reconcile reason and faith: this was a dominant theme of the later Middle Ages, and it remains an important element of Roman Catholicism. It would be a mistake to attribute to all Christians the overt hostility to reason displayed by Tertullian. However, the historical attempts to reconcile reason and faith are beside the point. The crucial issue is: Have these attempts succeeded? Moreover, can any attempt at rapprochement possibly succeed? To both of these questions, the answer is an emphatic "no."
I am not merely arguing, as a matter of historical fact, that all attempts to reconcile reason and faith have failed. My position is stronger than this. I am asserting that all such efforts must fail, that it is logically impossible to reconcile reason and faith. The concept of faith itself carries a "built-in" deprecation of reason; and without this anti-reason element, the concept of faith is rendered meaningless. (Throughout this discussion, the term "faith" refers to a supposedly reliable method of acquiring knowledge. Any other notion of faith is irrelevant with regard to the existence of God and the truth of Christian doctrines.)
In the next two chapters we shall examine the nature of reason and the major theories of faith advocated by Christian apologists. The groundwork for these discussions is presented in the remainder of this chapter, where I defend the position that reason and faith are, and must be, irreconcilable.
http://www20.brinkster.com/atheology/atheism_the_case_against_god_part_2_reason_vs_faith.htm
hmm...
"So, your approach is to basically take everything good and ignore the rest"
flip, the exact same thing could be said about your views
"So, your approach is to basically take everything bad and ignore the rest?
if you take everything literally in the bible thats your opinion and i respect that. im actually glad you read the bible at all, most people wouldnt take the time.
christ isnt anti familly hes quite the opposite. if i felt like grabing my bible which im sure im going to have to do later on to convey my point id show you what he means by brothers and sisters...so forth and so on. what i understood from the bible along with many other people i know is that he's refering to mankind in general, we're all brothers and sisters in gods eyes.
im not interested in reading someone elses point of view from a different website..chances are ive read it before. if youre talking to me which i think you are then use your own thoughts and views, id appreciate that very much.
another thing..
"They don't know what, but they believe. Maybe they don't want to be responsible for their lives. It's not their fault when something bad happens. It was meant to be..."
i know what i believe and im pretty sure most people who believe in god are pretty sure they believe in god haha...
im very resposible for my life and ive never blamed god or religion for anything that has gone wrong in it. i thank him every day that i even have the chance to have problems sometimes, its the joy of being alive to experience these feelings im grateful for.
you seem to have a very very shady reasoning for the a lack of god or religion in your life..what turned you so horribly agaisnt it? science? some kind of trauma?
id like to know...but if its to personal keep it to yourself
"So, your approach is to basically take everything good and ignore the rest"
flip, the exact same thing could be said about your views
"So, your approach is to basically take everything bad and ignore the rest?
if you take everything literally in the bible thats your opinion and i respect that. im actually glad you read the bible at all, most people wouldnt take the time.
christ isnt anti familly hes quite the opposite. if i felt like grabing my bible which im sure im going to have to do later on to convey my point id show you what he means by brothers and sisters...so forth and so on. what i understood from the bible along with many other people i know is that he's refering to mankind in general, we're all brothers and sisters in gods eyes.
im not interested in reading someone elses point of view from a different website..chances are ive read it before. if youre talking to me which i think you are then use your own thoughts and views, id appreciate that very much.
another thing..
"They don't know what, but they believe. Maybe they don't want to be responsible for their lives. It's not their fault when something bad happens. It was meant to be..."
i know what i believe and im pretty sure most people who believe in god are pretty sure they believe in god haha...
im very resposible for my life and ive never blamed god or religion for anything that has gone wrong in it. i thank him every day that i even have the chance to have problems sometimes, its the joy of being alive to experience these feelings im grateful for.
you seem to have a very very shady reasoning for the a lack of god or religion in your life..what turned you so horribly agaisnt it? science? some kind of trauma?
id like to know...but if its to personal keep it to yourself
searcher - more yada, you believe in what you read.
Faith is just a word, just like any other word. It simple implies us to 'believe in Jesus Christ'. Don't make it any more complicated. It's just no good.
We offer salvation as a free gift, we gave a choice to anyone who choses to believe. We do not require an athesist to convert, both are just two different views on what god is, and whether he exists. Athesists do not believe in god, but don't you agree Man needs to worship something? The only thing Man worships now is science, 'playing god' as they say it. Tampering with genes, DNA. We are totally messing up the order of nature and most of it is already irreversible. So let's say the world ends, where do we go? New Agers say we become a 'higher consciousness', Christians say they will be judged, Atheists would say 'Dead is dead, we are nothing more than physcial beings with a conscience'.
What is the point of God revealing himself to us, where everyone would know him and wouldn't it be obvious that this would put the world into a strange turmoil? People would start thinking 'hey, thats our real god, our creator, i believe!' that does not bring them to heaven, neither is it true faith or even if that matters. He has revealed himself once, as a human being and he died for us, for our sins. People tend to contradict this to Christianity as polytheism, which is unfortunately mistaken by many people and have left the church to find a 'better' faith.
Heaven and hell, the two most debatable spiritual plains we may end up after we die. Heaven is a place where the people who believe in Jesus Christ regardless of their sins. Hell is a place for those truly evil and unrepentant, and does not believe in God or has defied his obvious existance.
Comfort, is just another word. We, as humans, need comfort. The word "IF" is so frequently used in Atheism arguements that every point of arguement becomes nothing more than just a hypothesis that they are not sure of. So 'if' an atheist claims there could be a god, wouldn't that be straight away classified as 'agnostic'. After all, even Atheists do not know if God exists unless they are omniscient and know everything in the universe. Thus, even the term Atheism is nothing more than a word to describe people who do not believe in god, and not rather there is no god.
God to us is not just a comfort or something we use to satisfy. We pray to god for comfort, safety and hope. But this is not false hope, nor is it 'wishful thinking'. So if you think Christians use god as a source of comfort and desire, why is that there are still suffering christians out there? Sick christians who pray so hard to be healed, to get rid of their pain but still persist? Is this what you call that mythical satisfaction we get? Can that even be considered as satisfaction?
Faith is not cheap, it's priceless. Faith cannot be bought, do you have faith in your 'science'?
There are many books out there that speak of different religions. Have you really looked on it? Most theologian study such texts before writing, if not it would be just a narrow view of what they believe.
Yes, indeed people can get along fine without religion. Thats the same for people who need religion and find solace in it. Paradox?
Bad stuff, there are tons of bad things that happens in the Bible. God is a jealous god, he can also be angry. Great flood, destruction of sodom, the tower of babel etc. Which part refers him as anti-family? He grew up with his family just fine, he worked for his father. He was a carpenter and his mission here was not to build family ties and his parents very well understood that he was Jesus Christ. Does that make him anti-family just because he leaves the house to preach?
He did not warn us not to love our familiest too much. He does not discourage families either. Who said that?
That is a misintpretation in the bible, may i point to you what may seem good does not always deem as pleasurable or equate to sex. There is no where in the bible where they write that Jesus had sex.
When did all this happen? Did God command them? I would like to comment how people take a 5 second outlook on a verse and misinterpret what is written there. Maybe you should read the whole passage before deciphering it as a bad verse or something that contradictts God?
Have you read the parable of the servant who was forced to pray to an idol with his king? He prayed and he was allowed to bow to the idol, but in his heart he is not with the idol, but with the Lord. God did not ask the servant to assasinate the king for forcing him to bow to the idol. If you claim that they are forced to kill their families, then why didn't they? Surely, a blatant person would have done as such.
Sorry. I have to cut this short.
Faith is just a word, just like any other word. It simple implies us to 'believe in Jesus Christ'. Don't make it any more complicated. It's just no good.
We offer salvation as a free gift, we gave a choice to anyone who choses to believe. We do not require an athesist to convert, both are just two different views on what god is, and whether he exists. Athesists do not believe in god, but don't you agree Man needs to worship something? The only thing Man worships now is science, 'playing god' as they say it. Tampering with genes, DNA. We are totally messing up the order of nature and most of it is already irreversible. So let's say the world ends, where do we go? New Agers say we become a 'higher consciousness', Christians say they will be judged, Atheists would say 'Dead is dead, we are nothing more than physcial beings with a conscience'.
What is the point of God revealing himself to us, where everyone would know him and wouldn't it be obvious that this would put the world into a strange turmoil? People would start thinking 'hey, thats our real god, our creator, i believe!' that does not bring them to heaven, neither is it true faith or even if that matters. He has revealed himself once, as a human being and he died for us, for our sins. People tend to contradict this to Christianity as polytheism, which is unfortunately mistaken by many people and have left the church to find a 'better' faith.
Heaven and hell, the two most debatable spiritual plains we may end up after we die. Heaven is a place where the people who believe in Jesus Christ regardless of their sins. Hell is a place for those truly evil and unrepentant, and does not believe in God or has defied his obvious existance.
Comfort, is just another word. We, as humans, need comfort. The word "IF" is so frequently used in Atheism arguements that every point of arguement becomes nothing more than just a hypothesis that they are not sure of. So 'if' an atheist claims there could be a god, wouldn't that be straight away classified as 'agnostic'. After all, even Atheists do not know if God exists unless they are omniscient and know everything in the universe. Thus, even the term Atheism is nothing more than a word to describe people who do not believe in god, and not rather there is no god.
God to us is not just a comfort or something we use to satisfy. We pray to god for comfort, safety and hope. But this is not false hope, nor is it 'wishful thinking'. So if you think Christians use god as a source of comfort and desire, why is that there are still suffering christians out there? Sick christians who pray so hard to be healed, to get rid of their pain but still persist? Is this what you call that mythical satisfaction we get? Can that even be considered as satisfaction?
Faith is not cheap, it's priceless. Faith cannot be bought, do you have faith in your 'science'?
There are many books out there that speak of different religions. Have you really looked on it? Most theologian study such texts before writing, if not it would be just a narrow view of what they believe.
Yes, indeed people can get along fine without religion. Thats the same for people who need religion and find solace in it. Paradox?
Bad stuff, there are tons of bad things that happens in the Bible. God is a jealous god, he can also be angry. Great flood, destruction of sodom, the tower of babel etc. Which part refers him as anti-family? He grew up with his family just fine, he worked for his father. He was a carpenter and his mission here was not to build family ties and his parents very well understood that he was Jesus Christ. Does that make him anti-family just because he leaves the house to preach?
He did not warn us not to love our familiest too much. He does not discourage families either. Who said that?
That is a misintpretation in the bible, may i point to you what may seem good does not always deem as pleasurable or equate to sex. There is no where in the bible where they write that Jesus had sex.
When did all this happen? Did God command them? I would like to comment how people take a 5 second outlook on a verse and misinterpret what is written there. Maybe you should read the whole passage before deciphering it as a bad verse or something that contradictts God?
Have you read the parable of the servant who was forced to pray to an idol with his king? He prayed and he was allowed to bow to the idol, but in his heart he is not with the idol, but with the Lord. God did not ask the servant to assasinate the king for forcing him to bow to the idol. If you claim that they are forced to kill their families, then why didn't they? Surely, a blatant person would have done as such.
Sorry. I have to cut this short.
"flip, the exact same thing could be said about your views"
Would you care of explain?
"christ isnt anti familly hes quite the opposite. if i felt like grabing my bible which im sure im going to have to do later on to convey my point id show you what he means by brothers and sisters...so forth and so on. what i understood from the bible along with many other people i know is that he's refering to mankind in general, we're all brothers and sisters in gods eyes."
Not according to your holy book. I can find at least 50 examples of anti-family values. And you don't feel like opening the book, mmmhmmm.
"im not interested in reading someone elses point of view from a different website..chances are ive read it before. if youre talking to me which i think you are then use your own thoughts and views, id appreciate that very much."
There is no use to use my own words to convey something. I agree with everything I paste. Also, judging by your replies, I doubt you're read anything at all about atheism.
"i know what i believe and im pretty sure most people who believe in god are pretty sure they believe in god haha...
im very resposible for my life and ive never blamed god or religion for anything that has gone wrong in it. i thank him every day that i even have the chance to have problems sometimes, its the joy of being alive to experience these feelings im grateful for."
Now you're just taking about yourself. It's admirable that you take responsibility for your life, but many theists do not. I don't understand how you can thank an imaginary being, but I'm sure you have your own little way to do it.
"you seem to have a very very shady reasoning for the a lack of god or religion in your life..what turned you so horribly agaisnt it? science? some kind of trauma?
id like to know...but if its to personal keep it to yourself"
Which brings us to the default attitude of theists towards atheists: "if you don't believe in God, your reasoning MUST be shady." And it's shady because, well, you haven't read enough about atheism. If you did you would know that it's not a belief. It's a lack of belief. A means without and theos means realigion, therefore, it means without religion. It doesn't have a doctrine that tells atheists what to do. There are atheists who believe in Communism and there are atheists who believe in free enterprise. There are atheists who believe in secular humanism (myself included) and some who believe in objectivism. The only thing that can possibly unite atheists is our lack of belief in a supernatural being, nothing else. So, just for future reference, don't lump atheists in the same category.
What turned me against religion? How about the inconsistencies in the Bible? The preposterous claim for a being that doesn't exist? The supernatural that you, natural beings pretend to perceive? I don't know. I just put my faith aside one day and decided to look at things from a neutral perspective.
It's funny that you mention science when you ask why I don't believe. That's actually a very good guess. Yes, it's partly science. Because the more I learn, the more I see how stupid the claim for a supernatural being is.
Trauma? I was actually a Christian for many years. I always had questions about some things that didn't make sense. The pastor could never utter an explanation that was even remotely plausible. But, where did this trauma talk come from in the first place? I'm not the one who prays to an imaginary being.
Would you care of explain?
"christ isnt anti familly hes quite the opposite. if i felt like grabing my bible which im sure im going to have to do later on to convey my point id show you what he means by brothers and sisters...so forth and so on. what i understood from the bible along with many other people i know is that he's refering to mankind in general, we're all brothers and sisters in gods eyes."
Not according to your holy book. I can find at least 50 examples of anti-family values. And you don't feel like opening the book, mmmhmmm.
"im not interested in reading someone elses point of view from a different website..chances are ive read it before. if youre talking to me which i think you are then use your own thoughts and views, id appreciate that very much."
There is no use to use my own words to convey something. I agree with everything I paste. Also, judging by your replies, I doubt you're read anything at all about atheism.
"i know what i believe and im pretty sure most people who believe in god are pretty sure they believe in god haha...
im very resposible for my life and ive never blamed god or religion for anything that has gone wrong in it. i thank him every day that i even have the chance to have problems sometimes, its the joy of being alive to experience these feelings im grateful for."
Now you're just taking about yourself. It's admirable that you take responsibility for your life, but many theists do not. I don't understand how you can thank an imaginary being, but I'm sure you have your own little way to do it.
"you seem to have a very very shady reasoning for the a lack of god or religion in your life..what turned you so horribly agaisnt it? science? some kind of trauma?
id like to know...but if its to personal keep it to yourself"
Which brings us to the default attitude of theists towards atheists: "if you don't believe in God, your reasoning MUST be shady." And it's shady because, well, you haven't read enough about atheism. If you did you would know that it's not a belief. It's a lack of belief. A means without and theos means realigion, therefore, it means without religion. It doesn't have a doctrine that tells atheists what to do. There are atheists who believe in Communism and there are atheists who believe in free enterprise. There are atheists who believe in secular humanism (myself included) and some who believe in objectivism. The only thing that can possibly unite atheists is our lack of belief in a supernatural being, nothing else. So, just for future reference, don't lump atheists in the same category.
What turned me against religion? How about the inconsistencies in the Bible? The preposterous claim for a being that doesn't exist? The supernatural that you, natural beings pretend to perceive? I don't know. I just put my faith aside one day and decided to look at things from a neutral perspective.
It's funny that you mention science when you ask why I don't believe. That's actually a very good guess. Yes, it's partly science. Because the more I learn, the more I see how stupid the claim for a supernatural being is.
Trauma? I was actually a Christian for many years. I always had questions about some things that didn't make sense. The pastor could never utter an explanation that was even remotely plausible. But, where did this trauma talk come from in the first place? I'm not the one who prays to an imaginary being.
"searcher - more yada, you believe in what you read."
*Cough*The Bible*Cough* and you don't? I believe things I can see. I believe in logic and I believe in empirical evidence. If you call that believing what I read, then sure, whatever.
"Athesists do not believe in god, but don't you agree Man needs to worship something"
There is actually a lobe in your brain that invokes spiritual experiences. It's just the way nature allowed us to deal with the fact that we're mortal. What better way to let human live normal lives, than to plant a belief in an efterlife, right?
But anyway, I don't see a reason to worship anything. It sounds so medieval.
"The only thing Man worships now is science, 'playing god' as they say it. Tampering with genes, "DNA.
I can argue about your definition of worship, but I won't. So what if we "worship" science? What are you sittiong on right now? A computer? What do you drive to work? A car? What do you wear? Clothes? I rest my case. If you think science is bad, there are still some places where you can join the tribal kinds. No offence.
"We are totally messing up the order of nature and most of it is already irreversible."
That's human nature. It's sad but true. Our only hope here is to advance in science further.
"So let's say the world ends, where do we go? New Agers say we become a 'higher consciousness', Christians say they will be judged, Atheists would say 'Dead is dead, we are nothing more than physcial beings with a conscience'."
That's a question on everyone's mind. Some people deal with it and some people invent religion to deal with it. It's just the way the human mind works.
"What is the point of God revealing himself to us, where everyone would know him and wouldn't it be obvious that this would put the world into a strange turmoil? People would start thinking 'hey, thats our real god, our creator, i believe!' that does not bring them to heaven, neither is it true faith or even if that matters. He has revealed himself once, as a human being and he died for us, for our sins. People tend to contradict this to Christianity as polytheism, which is unfortunately mistaken by many people and have left the church to find a 'better' faith."
Something that wants us to believe in it better reveal itself! I refuse to believe something just because someone told me to. I require proof, both logical and empirical.
Did you know that it's not scientifically proven that Christ existed in the first place? Do you know that the gospels are ALL anonymous? It's true. There is no true faith because they're all the same. If one's true, they all are and vice versa.
"Heaven and hell, the two most debatable spiritual plains we may end up after we die. Heaven is a place where the people who believe in Jesus Christ regardless of their sins. Hell is a place for those truly evil and unrepentant, and does not believe in God or has defied his obvious existance."
IF heaven existsts, I refuse to be in the same place with Hitler (oh yeah, he was a Christian who believed). What about all the fundie morons who believe in slavery and the inequality of women? Would you like to be with them? Sad.
"Comfort, is just another word. We, as humans, need comfort. The word "IF" is so frequently used in Atheism arguements that every point of arguement becomes nothing more than just a hypothesis that they are not sure of. So 'if' an atheist claims there could be a god, wouldn't that be straight away classified as 'agnostic'. After all, even Atheists do not know if God exists unless they are omniscient and know everything in the universe. Thus, even the term Atheism is nothing more than a word to describe people who do not believe in god, and not rather there is no god."
Stop lumping atheists in the same category. Atheism deals with belief (i.e. I do not believe in a God) while agnosticism deals with knowledge (i.e. I do not know there is a God). These two different things that cannot be in the same category. If you're an agnostic you're also either an atheist or a theist. Read http://www20.brinkster.com/atheology/atheism_the_case_against_god.htm for more info.
There are some things you can be absolutely sure of. These things are called axioms. Read up on that.
"God to us is not just a comfort or something we use to satisfy. We pray to god for comfort, safety and hope. But this is not false hope, nor is it 'wishful thinking'. So if you think Christians use god as a source of comfort and desire, why is that there are still suffering christians out there? Sick christians who pray so hard to be healed, to get rid of their pain but still persist? Is this what you call that mythical satisfaction we get? Can that even be considered as satisfaction?"
Twist and turn any way you want. It's comfort. By the way, people who do not pray also heal.
Comfort. The real goal of Christians is not to find the truth that sets them free, but to find the comfort that will make them comfortable for all of eternity. Such a claim is easily proven. If it one day turns out that the Bible is false and that a comfortable eternal life is still available for everyone in varying degrees, courtesy of some powerful being, no Christian who has ever lived would turn down such an offer, especially if not accepting the offer would cause them to end up in an uncomfortable hell for all of eternity. Under such a scenario, Christians would simply consider their gullibility to be quite natural for humans and begin to enjoy a comfortable eternal life.
Although Christians are greatly influenced by coercive New Testament claims of reward and punishment, skeptics are not influenced by claims of reward and punishment, at least regarding their own world view. A skeptic believes that if he becomes a Christian and it eventually turns out that Christianity is a false religion, he will still end up in the same state that he would have been in had he not become a Christian. On the other hand, a Christian believes that if he becomes a skeptic and it eventually turns out that Christianity is a true religion, he will end up in hell. Coercive influences often cloud objective thinking. In addition, it is often not wise to ask an important question to a person who has a perceived vested interest in the answer. The followers of most or all religions perceive that they have a vested interest in their beliefs. As far as those people are concerned, all roads lead to eternal comfort.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Christians are attempting to use their mythical God to satisfy their desires for comfort, both physical and emotional, and for nothing else, especially eternal comfort, in a manner no different than a dog or a trained seal attempts to do tricks in order to receive a reward of food, some kind words and a pat on the back.
If you are a Christian, can you think of even a single desire that you have that is not related to comfort, either present comfort or future comfort, for yourself of someone else? Will you be honest enough to admit that if you one day find out that your beliefs are false, and a comfortable heaven is available from a being other than the God of the Bible, your conclusion at that time would be that the God of the Bible is replaceable, but the desire for eternal comfort is not replaceable?
"Faith is not cheap, it's priceless. Faith cannot be bought, do you have faith in your 'science'?"
Every religion has faith. Science is not faith based, it is a self correcting system based on knowledge. What do you mean our 'science'? That's a nice double standard. Get off the computer if it's out science, move to the amazon jungle and build a temple.
"There are many books out there that speak of different religions. Have you really looked on it? Most theologian study such texts before writing, if not it would be just a narrow view of what they believe."
Most theologians study "their" religion but that's beside the point. I have read many books about many religions. I've read the Bible over 10 times and the quran 3-4 times. I read everything I get my hands on because I want data. I want to know what I'm talking about.
"Yes, indeed people can get along fine without religion. Thats the same for people who need religion and find solace in it. Paradox?"
People need religion? Maybe. That's human nature. Most people are afraid to die. Religion just happens to help them. I can do fine without it. When I'm in trouble, I do not pray, I act.
"Bad stuff, there are tons of bad things that happens in the Bible. God is a jealous god, he can also be angry. Great flood, destruction of sodom, the tower of babel etc. Which part refers him as anti-family? He grew up with his family just fine, he worked for his father. He was a carpenter and his mission here was not to build family ties and his parents very well understood that he was Jesus Christ. Does that make him anti-family just because he leaves the house to preach?"
This part:
Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. 10:21
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36
Jesus warns us not to love our parents or children too much. We have to make sure that we always love him (who we don't even know existed) more than our family. 10:37
When Jesus' mother and brothers want to see him, Jesus rudely asks, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" So much for Jesus' family values. 12:47-49
You say I should read the whole passage. I think I mentioned how much I read the bible. But go ahead, read the whole passage! Reading the whole passage usually makes things worse.
DO NOT KILL!!
What is the first thing Moses does when he comes down from the mountain? I think you know.
*Cough*The Bible*Cough* and you don't? I believe things I can see. I believe in logic and I believe in empirical evidence. If you call that believing what I read, then sure, whatever.
"Athesists do not believe in god, but don't you agree Man needs to worship something"
There is actually a lobe in your brain that invokes spiritual experiences. It's just the way nature allowed us to deal with the fact that we're mortal. What better way to let human live normal lives, than to plant a belief in an efterlife, right?
But anyway, I don't see a reason to worship anything. It sounds so medieval.
"The only thing Man worships now is science, 'playing god' as they say it. Tampering with genes, "DNA.
I can argue about your definition of worship, but I won't. So what if we "worship" science? What are you sittiong on right now? A computer? What do you drive to work? A car? What do you wear? Clothes? I rest my case. If you think science is bad, there are still some places where you can join the tribal kinds. No offence.
"We are totally messing up the order of nature and most of it is already irreversible."
That's human nature. It's sad but true. Our only hope here is to advance in science further.
"So let's say the world ends, where do we go? New Agers say we become a 'higher consciousness', Christians say they will be judged, Atheists would say 'Dead is dead, we are nothing more than physcial beings with a conscience'."
That's a question on everyone's mind. Some people deal with it and some people invent religion to deal with it. It's just the way the human mind works.
"What is the point of God revealing himself to us, where everyone would know him and wouldn't it be obvious that this would put the world into a strange turmoil? People would start thinking 'hey, thats our real god, our creator, i believe!' that does not bring them to heaven, neither is it true faith or even if that matters. He has revealed himself once, as a human being and he died for us, for our sins. People tend to contradict this to Christianity as polytheism, which is unfortunately mistaken by many people and have left the church to find a 'better' faith."
Something that wants us to believe in it better reveal itself! I refuse to believe something just because someone told me to. I require proof, both logical and empirical.
Did you know that it's not scientifically proven that Christ existed in the first place? Do you know that the gospels are ALL anonymous? It's true. There is no true faith because they're all the same. If one's true, they all are and vice versa.
"Heaven and hell, the two most debatable spiritual plains we may end up after we die. Heaven is a place where the people who believe in Jesus Christ regardless of their sins. Hell is a place for those truly evil and unrepentant, and does not believe in God or has defied his obvious existance."
IF heaven existsts, I refuse to be in the same place with Hitler (oh yeah, he was a Christian who believed). What about all the fundie morons who believe in slavery and the inequality of women? Would you like to be with them? Sad.
"Comfort, is just another word. We, as humans, need comfort. The word "IF" is so frequently used in Atheism arguements that every point of arguement becomes nothing more than just a hypothesis that they are not sure of. So 'if' an atheist claims there could be a god, wouldn't that be straight away classified as 'agnostic'. After all, even Atheists do not know if God exists unless they are omniscient and know everything in the universe. Thus, even the term Atheism is nothing more than a word to describe people who do not believe in god, and not rather there is no god."
Stop lumping atheists in the same category. Atheism deals with belief (i.e. I do not believe in a God) while agnosticism deals with knowledge (i.e. I do not know there is a God). These two different things that cannot be in the same category. If you're an agnostic you're also either an atheist or a theist. Read http://www20.brinkster.com/atheology/atheism_the_case_against_god.htm for more info.
There are some things you can be absolutely sure of. These things are called axioms. Read up on that.
"God to us is not just a comfort or something we use to satisfy. We pray to god for comfort, safety and hope. But this is not false hope, nor is it 'wishful thinking'. So if you think Christians use god as a source of comfort and desire, why is that there are still suffering christians out there? Sick christians who pray so hard to be healed, to get rid of their pain but still persist? Is this what you call that mythical satisfaction we get? Can that even be considered as satisfaction?"
Twist and turn any way you want. It's comfort. By the way, people who do not pray also heal.
Comfort. The real goal of Christians is not to find the truth that sets them free, but to find the comfort that will make them comfortable for all of eternity. Such a claim is easily proven. If it one day turns out that the Bible is false and that a comfortable eternal life is still available for everyone in varying degrees, courtesy of some powerful being, no Christian who has ever lived would turn down such an offer, especially if not accepting the offer would cause them to end up in an uncomfortable hell for all of eternity. Under such a scenario, Christians would simply consider their gullibility to be quite natural for humans and begin to enjoy a comfortable eternal life.
Although Christians are greatly influenced by coercive New Testament claims of reward and punishment, skeptics are not influenced by claims of reward and punishment, at least regarding their own world view. A skeptic believes that if he becomes a Christian and it eventually turns out that Christianity is a false religion, he will still end up in the same state that he would have been in had he not become a Christian. On the other hand, a Christian believes that if he becomes a skeptic and it eventually turns out that Christianity is a true religion, he will end up in hell. Coercive influences often cloud objective thinking. In addition, it is often not wise to ask an important question to a person who has a perceived vested interest in the answer. The followers of most or all religions perceive that they have a vested interest in their beliefs. As far as those people are concerned, all roads lead to eternal comfort.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Christians are attempting to use their mythical God to satisfy their desires for comfort, both physical and emotional, and for nothing else, especially eternal comfort, in a manner no different than a dog or a trained seal attempts to do tricks in order to receive a reward of food, some kind words and a pat on the back.
If you are a Christian, can you think of even a single desire that you have that is not related to comfort, either present comfort or future comfort, for yourself of someone else? Will you be honest enough to admit that if you one day find out that your beliefs are false, and a comfortable heaven is available from a being other than the God of the Bible, your conclusion at that time would be that the God of the Bible is replaceable, but the desire for eternal comfort is not replaceable?
"Faith is not cheap, it's priceless. Faith cannot be bought, do you have faith in your 'science'?"
Every religion has faith. Science is not faith based, it is a self correcting system based on knowledge. What do you mean our 'science'? That's a nice double standard. Get off the computer if it's out science, move to the amazon jungle and build a temple.
"There are many books out there that speak of different religions. Have you really looked on it? Most theologian study such texts before writing, if not it would be just a narrow view of what they believe."
Most theologians study "their" religion but that's beside the point. I have read many books about many religions. I've read the Bible over 10 times and the quran 3-4 times. I read everything I get my hands on because I want data. I want to know what I'm talking about.
"Yes, indeed people can get along fine without religion. Thats the same for people who need religion and find solace in it. Paradox?"
People need religion? Maybe. That's human nature. Most people are afraid to die. Religion just happens to help them. I can do fine without it. When I'm in trouble, I do not pray, I act.
"Bad stuff, there are tons of bad things that happens in the Bible. God is a jealous god, he can also be angry. Great flood, destruction of sodom, the tower of babel etc. Which part refers him as anti-family? He grew up with his family just fine, he worked for his father. He was a carpenter and his mission here was not to build family ties and his parents very well understood that he was Jesus Christ. Does that make him anti-family just because he leaves the house to preach?"
This part:
Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. 10:21
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36
Jesus warns us not to love our parents or children too much. We have to make sure that we always love him (who we don't even know existed) more than our family. 10:37
When Jesus' mother and brothers want to see him, Jesus rudely asks, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" So much for Jesus' family values. 12:47-49
You say I should read the whole passage. I think I mentioned how much I read the bible. But go ahead, read the whole passage! Reading the whole passage usually makes things worse.
DO NOT KILL!!
What is the first thing Moses does when he comes down from the mountain? I think you know.
chronohistorian
Dimensional Traveler
Sarah-why should I repeat myself? it takes too long in typing especially with no computer that I talk to.
The simpsons are on bbc 2.
JamesAnthony-911 days between the attacks I think it was.
searcher-I can see science experiments, I can smell them, I can hear them bubbling or exploding, I can touch them and even taste them sometimes. I can hear and feel the wind. I cannot do any of these with god.
we have no idea how many dimensions there are.
The simpsons are on bbc 2.
JamesAnthony-911 days between the attacks I think it was.
searcher-I can see science experiments, I can smell them, I can hear them bubbling or exploding, I can touch them and even taste them sometimes. I can hear and feel the wind. I cannot do any of these with god.
we have no idea how many dimensions there are.
chronohistorian
Dimensional Traveler
I know how to spell words correctly but if I had to type and check my spelling at the same time then we would be here all day because it takes me a long time to type without proof reading it for mistakes.
Gimme a break! You claim not only to be a Time Traveller, but a SCHOLAR?!? But typing and spelling correctly is too hard for you?
Seriously... don't you have anything better to do? I mean... at least come up with a better story. I swear, I could come up with a doosie of a hoax and have creedo eating out of my hand if I wanted to. You, sir, are and amateur.
Seriously... don't you have anything better to do? I mean... at least come up with a better story. I swear, I could come up with a doosie of a hoax and have creedo eating out of my hand if I wanted to. You, sir, are and amateur.