something about having to make choices to learn, and learning is growing... and that's what we're here to do...

90% or so of the people on the planet believe in some form of a creator. There is no lack of people wanting to believe and wanting to be true to what they believe. They have already made the choice to accept and to believe.

Unfortunately they have no means of knowing what the correct method of worship and which god is the right god other than the cultural understanding they have from their elders. To believe god must remain hidden in order to protect free will is ludicrous when so many people are not only willing to believe, but eager to worship god.

F...

something about having to make choices to learn, and learning is growing... and that's what we're here to do...

90% or so of the people on the planet believe in some form of a creator. There is no lack of people wanting to believe and wanting to be true to what they believe. They have already made the choice to accept and to believe.

Unfortunately they have no means of knowing what the correct method of worship and which god is the right god other than the cultural understanding they have from their elders. To believe god must remain hidden in order to protect free will is ludicrous when so many people are not only willing to believe, but eager to worship god.

Faith is a double edged sword. It allows people to hold firm to their faith when things get rough, but it also locks them into a false belief if they've been taught wrong. The inaction of a god damns these people who would be willing followers.

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."
-- H. L. Mencken

Faith: "the desire for approval of supernatural beings." -- Martin Amis

"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks, without knowledge, of things without parallel." -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

"It makes no sense to anybody. That's why you have to believe it, that's why you have to have faith. I mean if it made sense it wouldn't have to be a religion, would it?" -- Nuns on the Run

"Religion is based on blind faith; it is not evidence-based. It rests on basic bel...

read more»

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."
-- H. L. Mencken

Faith: "the desire for approval of supernatural beings." -- Martin Amis

"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks, without knowledge, of things without parallel." -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

"It makes no sense to anybody. That's why you have to believe it, that's why you have to have faith. I mean if it made sense it wouldn't have to be a religion, would it?" -- Nuns on the Run

"Religion is based on blind faith; it is not evidence-based. It rests on basic beliefs - dogma - that are not derived nor supported by observation or by performance, but by need. It is wishful thinking used to simplify everything; it requires no real thinking. It survives on the need for an uncomplicated and easily explained world, and prides itself on its rejection of rationality. Its mascot/saint is Pollyanna. Religion eschews reason, investigation, and logic, as disturbing and unwanted elements of life. Religion is comforting, but also sophistic and - to me - soporific. I'll have none of it."
-- James Randi, 3/19/04

There is no ad hominem. I was pointing out that the source is called ex-christian.net, but does not refute points on the basis of Christian doctrine, rather raises issues solidly affirmed by Christian theology. It seems there is a refusal to know the Christian stance on these issues. If they did know, they could still be atheists and ex-Christians. However, they would not base their arguments on such unintellectual and juvenile premises.

As far as evidence goes, we've been through tis before. I understand you are not open to logical foundations and arguments as you argue for confusion and illogic. You can review my past comments to you. They are more than adequate to open your eyes if you...

There is no ad hominem. I was pointing out that the source is called ex-christian.net, but does not refute points on the basis of Christian doctrine, rather raises issues solidly affirmed by Christian theology. It seems there is a refusal to know the Christian stance on these issues. If they did know, they could still be atheists and ex-Christians. However, they would not base their arguments on such unintellectual and juvenile premises.

As far as evidence goes, we've been through tis before. I understand you are not open to logical foundations and arguments as you argue for confusion and illogic. You can review my past comments to you. They are more than adequate to open your eyes if you are willing. However, I suggest you gain an understanding on clear thinking. Learn about what makes a statement true and what makes a statement false, learn about fallacies and incorrect statements, challenge your own thinking, empty yourself of all preconceived notions and just put back only that which you can affirm.

...empty yourself of all preconceived notions and just put back only that which you can affirm.

I did that almost half a century ago, which is why I'm not a believer. There's nothing at all logical about any religion, let alone Christianity.

"The Christian God is a being of a terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." --George Washington

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance...

read more»

...empty yourself of all preconceived notions and just put back only that which you can affirm.

I did that almost half a century ago, which is why I'm not a believer. There's nothing at all logical about any religion, let alone Christianity.

"The Christian God is a being of a terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." --George Washington

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition,bigotry and persecution. What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." -- James Madison

What are you talking about, willhelm? You point out the source of the clip with "Source exchristian.net ...right!" and you don't see that as an implied ad hominem?

I don't even know why I bother with people like you. You vomit out accusations of not understanding monotheism, christianity, or reasoning when you don't even comprehend the concept of atheism. That you cannot follow the points being made in the clip only shows you how thick you really are.

Let me use a little ad hominem, and I won't deny the usage like a coward. willhelm, you are an ass clown - a waste...

What are you talking about, willhelm? You point out the source of the clip with "Source exchristian.net ...right!" and you don't see that as an implied ad hominem?

I don't even know why I bother with people like you. You vomit out accusations of not understanding monotheism, christianity, or reasoning when you don't even comprehend the concept of atheism. That you cannot follow the points being made in the clip only shows you how thick you really are.

Let me use a little ad hominem, and I won't deny the usage like a coward. willhelm, you are an ass clown - a waster of time. You provide nothing better than a denial to points made based upon your acceptance of them and then try to take a position of authority in simply dismissing them. You play semantical games with sentence structure or rules of logic rather than actually facing the points or charges being made. You hide behind apologetic redefining of terms, concepts, and misdirection and yet have the audacity to claim that those opposed to your view need to empty themselves of preconcieved notions and back up that which they can affirm.

Boy, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Take the blinders off, stop trying to force everything you learn into conforming into what you already believe. Actually try to answer the points made above rather than trying to obfuscate and divert the issue into termonology and rules of logic. They are reasonable observations that point out valid problems with god belief.

Point 1 - To say God is unlikey because there is no God really sums up the intellectual grasp of the writer. It is also self-refuting, circular, and infinitely regressive.

Point 2 - The fact there are various religions speaks in no way to the validity of a particular religion and certainly does nothing to speak to the existence of God. The FACT is one religion is right OR they are ALL wrong, but it does not follow to say one is wrong so they are all wrong.

Point 3 - Faith is probably the most difficult basis on which to achieve salvation. My faith is because of grace. I have done absolutely nothing to gain my faith. However it grows in me by knowledge, ascent, and the most difficult in...

Point 1 - To say God is unlikey because there is no God really sums up the intellectual grasp of the writer. It is also self-refuting, circular, and infinitely regressive.

Point 2 - The fact there are various religions speaks in no way to the validity of a particular religion and certainly does nothing to speak to the existence of God. The FACT is one religion is right OR they are ALL wrong, but it does not follow to say one is wrong so they are all wrong.

Point 3 - Faith is probably the most difficult basis on which to achieve salvation. My faith is because of grace. I have done absolutely nothing to gain my faith. However it grows in me by knowledge, ascent, and the most difficult in regards to daily life - trust.

Point 4 - Funny thing to bash Christianity on an argument against the existence of God. Really makes no sense but does suggest a lack of faith to demean Christianity in the light of so many other faiths. God is revealed in the fullness of time and the light of revelation. If God opens your eyes you will see. If not - You will not. Judging by the ability of slowdjin and oortcloud to reason well, I pray heavily and heartily the hardening to be removed.

Point 5 - And size is relevant how? Theology aside - does it realy matter to you that you are not in a plastic box with God staring at you through an air hole?

Point 6 - That is certainly true about all religious texts except one. There is not more heavily scrutinized, achaelogically validated, and theologically plausible book as the Bible. The historical scrutiny and veracity is unmatched. Also, the theological implications that tie it all together from beginning to end are theologically consistent and extraordinarily profound.

Point 7 - Nothing succeds like prayer - Prayer is not a begging session. It is a relationship-building practice. I've never known prayer to fail in this regard.

Point 8 - War in general is a result of man's inability to achieve a Humanistic utopia. We are bound to evil and evil is bound to us. Man is incapable of good...

Point 6 - That is certainly true about all religious texts except one. There is not more heavily scrutinized, achaelogically validated, and theologically plausible book as the Bible. The historical scrutiny and veracity is unmatched. Also, the theological implications that tie it all together from beginning to end are theologically consistent and extraordinarily profound.

Point 7 - Nothing succeds like prayer - Prayer is not a begging session. It is a relationship-building practice. I've never known prayer to fail in this regard.

Point 8 - War in general is a result of man's inability to achieve a Humanistic utopia. We are bound to evil and evil is bound to us. Man is incapable of good.

Point 9 - We do not live in a glorious paradise, without evil and tragedy ! That's your argument? The nature of our world is depraved for a reason.

Well you can think it is inane if you want since you are bound to it. My point is just that someone that was a Christian and understood Christianity would not frame the points the way they did.
I could make a case against Christianity. It would not be as substantive as the case for Christianity.Anyway you continue to want to bash Christianity.

All I'm saying is this clip is about the existence of God - not Christianity. So why do they frame their points in ways that are obtuse. If I went from being a Christian to being an atheist my points would be framed differently.

In fact - I am a solid adherent and believer in Christ. Given my background and understanding I could make a much be...

Well you can think it is inane if you want since you are bound to it. My point is just that someone that was a Christian and understood Christianity would not frame the points the way they did.
I could make a case against Christianity. It would not be as substantive as the case for Christianity.Anyway you continue to want to bash Christianity.

All I'm saying is this clip is about the existence of God - not Christianity. So why do they frame their points in ways that are obtuse. If I went from being a Christian to being an atheist my points would be framed differently.

In fact - I am a solid adherent and believer in Christ. Given my background and understanding I could make a much better case against Christianity than anything I've ever heard from a bunch of Christian bashing atheistic zealots. i would expect someone that was once a Christian to be able to frame better points than these silly points that do nothing but attract poor-thinking haters.

Since I am bound to what? Believing it to be inane? I think I just heard an angel scream as it fell off the head of a pin. Circular arguments do that.

How ex-Christians phrase their discontent is up to them. That some of them might be able to phrase it more solidly than was done here is certainly no cause for alarm. Maybe their perspective will be buffed up a little as they get past realizing what a waste they'd been involved in. Right now, it's all a cause for applause and being happy for them.

And what the clip is about is the existence of a god or gods as much as it's about Christianity. It's about Christianity simply because it comes from exchristian.net which therefore frames t...

Since I am bound to what? Believing it to be inane? I think I just heard an angel scream as it fell off the head of a pin. Circular arguments do that.

How ex-Christians phrase their discontent is up to them. That some of them might be able to phrase it more solidly than was done here is certainly no cause for alarm. Maybe their perspective will be buffed up a little as they get past realizing what a waste they'd been involved in. Right now, it's all a cause for applause and being happy for them.

And what the clip is about is the existence of a god or gods as much as it's about Christianity. It's about Christianity simply because it comes from exchristian.net which therefore frames their perspective.

"bash Christianity" ... "Christian bashing atheistic zealots" ... "poor thinking haters". If you, or they don't want me making fun of them, they should believe something less idiotic.

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ...and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.... -- St. Augustine

Oortcloud, your are wrong about ad hominem. You simply are misguided.
ad hominem is an attack on character, personhood, or motive. I question validity, not authenticity.

Because you provided such a stunning refutation of those points to show how invalid they were! </sarcasm>

Had you addressed the points made you could have claimed to have argued against validity. Instead, you pointed toward the source of the clip in obvious contempt. You then immediatly dismissed the author as lacking knowledge in religion and a basic grasp of reasoning ability without even addressing why you came to that conclusion. You made an appeal against the argument without even addressing the...

Oortcloud, your are wrong about ad hominem. You simply are misguided.
ad hominem is an attack on character, personhood, or motive. I question validity, not authenticity.

Because you provided such a stunning refutation of those points to show how invalid they were! </sarcasm>

Had you addressed the points made you could have claimed to have argued against validity. Instead, you pointed toward the source of the clip in obvious contempt. You then immediatly dismissed the author as lacking knowledge in religion and a basic grasp of reasoning ability without even addressing why you came to that conclusion. You made an appeal against the argument without even addressing the substance of the argumnt. A plain ad hominem attack.

Again you draw the discussion away from the topic and argue semantics on what you have grandiosely defined as a "non sequiter". And as usual your application of definition is more of a personal redefinition to fit your beliefs.

Please stop wasting our time.

OK fine. I know atheists and have friends that are atheists.

They must have a lot more patience for drivel than I've seen from the non-religious crowd in Clipmarks.

They would be embarrassed if was thought that these buffoons writing this clip, and the clippers making their points were representative of their views.

They'd probably be embarrassed to see you promoting the local to the universal, taking a few words from ex-Christians and pigeonholing both the words and two of the Clipmarkers who commented.

You are both wannabes, no substance - just vitriol.

I've been patient with you through a lot of these discussions, as has Oortcloud. But your argum...

OK fine. I know atheists and have friends that are atheists.

They must have a lot more patience for drivel than I've seen from the non-religious crowd in Clipmarks.

They would be embarrassed if was thought that these buffoons writing this clip, and the clippers making their points were representative of their views.

They'd probably be embarrassed to see you promoting the local to the universal, taking a few words from ex-Christians and pigeonholing both the words and two of the Clipmarkers who commented.

You are both wannabes, no substance - just vitriol.

I've been patient with you through a lot of these discussions, as has Oortcloud. But your arguments are crud. Always crud. It would be different if you would respond to what people say, rather than what it is you wish they'd say so that you could feel like you were winning this debate.

It's funny when I, a Christian, can make a better case for Atheism than anything either of you have ever commented or anything I've ever read at CM.

It's funny that you think so...

There's no honesty in the empty rhetoric you toss around on this topic. Many of us have waved goodbye in the past. I don't know about Oortcloud, but I'm certainly done trying to take you seriously.

Watching you attempt to string ideas together and defend your position is like watching the relay race at the Special Olympics.

I don't know about Oortcloud, but I'm certainly done trying to take you seriously.

I try to provide a counter-point to absurd claims because there are people out there seeking honest answers and trying to actually develop an informed decision. It doesn't matter what willhelm or people like him believe. It's what they present as proof for their claims. It's how well their claims hold up to critical examination that's important. It's truly as willhelm claims :

I, a Christian, can make a better case for Atheism than anything either of you have commented...

Anyone reading the bible with an open mind will immediatly start to find things that don't jive with what rel...

I don't know about Oortcloud, but I'm certainly done trying to take you seriously.

I try to provide a counter-point to absurd claims because there are people out there seeking honest answers and trying to actually develop an informed decision. It doesn't matter what willhelm or people like him believe. It's what they present as proof for their claims. It's how well their claims hold up to critical examination that's important. It's truly as willhelm claims :

I, a Christian, can make a better case for Atheism than anything either of you have commented...

Anyone reading the bible with an open mind will immediatly start to find things that don't jive with what religion claims. Religion is its own worste enemy. But many people have been denied the ability to question for so long that they automatically deny anything that contradicts what they believe. That is why I think important to challenge religious claims and provide evidence when they are faulty. I understand it is difficult to do in this forum of 2000 characters, but all it takes is a seed. A little research on the internet provides the rest.

Watching you attempt to string ideas together and defend your position is like watching the relay race at the Special Olympics

Hey .. my cousin was in the special olympics and he performed far better than that!

To be fair, I see that willhelm did finaly address the actual points above.

Typical response of someone that cannot embrace logic.

That's strange, considering that I used to teach it...

If you feel like an idiot because a Christian can make a better case for Atheism than you, an Athiest, then I do not blame you.

Well, first, I don't feel like an idiot. Not on this topic, anyway. Second, although we have your word that you can make a better case for atheism (it wasn't the purpose of this post to do so. Rather, the purpose was to explore an ex-Christian's position on religion), considering that you haven't yet made a good case for Christianity I think it's safe to say that I'm dubious about this. Third, I've told you before that [i]'ath...

Typical response of someone that cannot embrace logic.

That's strange, considering that I used to teach it...

If you feel like an idiot because a Christian can make a better case for Atheism than you, an Athiest, then I do not blame you.

Well, first, I don't feel like an idiot. Not on this topic, anyway. Second, although we have your word that you can make a better case for atheism (it wasn't the purpose of this post to do so. Rather, the purpose was to explore an ex-Christian's position on religion), considering that you haven't yet made a good case for Christianity I think it's safe to say that I'm dubious about this. Third, I've told you before that 'atheist' isn't a label I apply to myself.

You engage in nothing substantive other than Christian bashing. Every time you clip or comment about God it always goes back to Christians are stupid.

Not true, though I fully suspect some of that could be found in my past Clipmarks. While I can, and have, politely discussed religion, there appears to be no good reason to do so with people who are flinging their rhetoric from the slop pail.

Look, I cannot help it that you or Oortcloud are frustrated because you are not educated enough to validly debate these issues.

Amazing. I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you.

I try very hard not to talk down to you

I think your attempt to convince the rest of us that you didn't just step on your crank counts as emotional investment.

In response to willhelm :
Point 1 - Did you read the source? It did not say "god is unlikely because there is no god" - that's you just creating a strawman argument.

Point 2 - I've addressed this above. It's the 3rd comment right below bohica. If your god were real then he would make it undeniably known to all people what the correct religion was. The answer you provided is dependent on your blind faith, and shows it.

Point 3 - As I pointed out above "[faith] locks them into a false belief if they've been taught wrong". So long as you accept faith you can never determine truth.

Point 4 - Ok, you went clear off the tracks on this one. Firstly, this one pointed out the problem with the "hi...

In response to willhelm :
Point 1 - Did you read the source? It did not say "god is unlikely because there is no god" - that's you just creating a strawman argument.

Point 2 - I've addressed this above. It's the 3rd comment right below bohica. If your god were real then he would make it undeniably known to all people what the correct religion was. The answer you provided is dependent on your blind faith, and shows it.

Point 3 - As I pointed out above "[faith] locks them into a false belief if they've been taught wrong". So long as you accept faith you can never determine truth.

Point 4 - Ok, you went clear off the tracks on this one. Firstly, this one pointed out the problem with the "hidden god" ideal that many believers have. I'm not sure what tangent you got on. Secondly you say "If god opens your eyes..." suggesting that my believe or non belief is not my responsibility. Very Calvinistic. You have that contradiction thing going here - free will but god controls ... also, save your breath in praying for me, I deny the holy spirit.

Point 5 - The relevance is the claim of creation for mankind and all that wasted space (didn't you even read the site?)

Point 6 - The plausibility of the bible as scrutinized and validated? See here. You cannot even agree amongst yourselves which parts are literal and which are metaphorical.

Point 7 - You deny Mathew 17:20 then? Or you ask for god's will be done, which he'd probably just do anyway without requiring you to pray for him to do it ... a bit circular don't you think?

Point 8 - "He[man] is the only animal that
loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight" - Mark Twain

Point 9 - You are right, life is not a paradise, it is reality - a loving and compassionate god of omnipotence would be incapable of allowing suffering.

don't forget to include your evidence and your sources!

Wow, there's a double standard if there ever was one! Oh, sorry, www.exchristian.hell is your reliable source, I suppose.

This looks fun. How come I didn't know about this sooner? I have GOT to quit working so much and read my Clipmarks more often

I think I'll just start with the original clip.

1.Yes there is.
2: Because man is sinful and incapable of knowing God without God changing Him, he tends to worship idols, including, often himself and his own reason.
3: The real God does expect faith in Him, and even gives it to people as a free gift.4. The God of the Bible speaks to all men by means of the Bible.
5. Th...

don't forget to include your evidence and your sources!

Wow, there's a double standard if there ever was one! Oh, sorry, www.exchristian.hell is your reliable source, I suppose.

This looks fun. How come I didn't know about this sooner? I have GOT to quit working so much and read my Clipmarks more often

I think I'll just start with the original clip.

1.Yes there is.
2: Because man is sinful and incapable of knowing God without God changing Him, he tends to worship idols, including, often himself and his own reason.
3: The real God does expect faith in Him, and even gives it to people as a free gift.4. The God of the Bible speaks to all men by means of the Bible.
5. The known universe is believed to be around 6 thousand years old, millions of light years in size. The earth, compared to the universe,
relatively, isn't the size of a virus, further demonstrating the sheer enormity and majesty of its Creator and Sustainer
6:
The only source of information for the world's non-Christian religions, including atheism and its ilk, is from
vague and unknown authors without any substantial historical
verification, further affirming the uniqueness and reliability of Christianity's claims to exclusivity.
7: Nothing fails like arrogant man, who thinks having cold beer, cable TV and a Honda mean he's civilized.8: Atheist/secularist wars:9: Disease and suffering, especially among children, being the results of man's own sin, will be mercifully and undeservedly completely eradicated when Christ returns, and in the meantime are mercifully restrained by God the more people live as God requires them to live.

I like ending with 9...a trinity of trinities! Beautiful.

Ah, wonderful...

The problem with living in a metaphysical sewer and consoling yourself with noseplugs and hip boots is that regardless how nice the sewer is with those measures in place, no one wants to visit you anyway.

"In their most extreme forms, monotheistic religions are deeply intolerant. If there is only one right way of doing things, every other way is wrong. If we are good, others are evil. By contrast, the ancient Greeks and Romans welcomed new gods into their pantheon and worshiped them alongside the old. They had no crusades or jihads. The Roman authorities threw Christians to the lions because they mistook the early Christians' intolerance for seditiousness. They did n...

Ah, wonderful...

The problem with living in a metaphysical sewer and consoling yourself with noseplugs and hip boots is that regardless how nice the sewer is with those measures in place, no one wants to visit you anyway.

"In their most extreme forms, monotheistic religions are deeply intolerant. If there is only one right way of doing things, every other way is wrong. If we are good, others are evil. By contrast, the ancient Greeks and Romans welcomed new gods into their pantheon and worshiped them alongside the old. They had no crusades or jihads. The Roman authorities threw Christians to the lions because they mistook the early Christians' intolerance for seditiousness. They did not seek to kill them because they rejected the Christians' God."
-- Mary Lefkowitz, author of "Greek Gods, Human Lives: What We Can Learn From Myths."

The Roman authorities threw Christians to the lions because they
mistook the early Christians' intolerance for seditiousness. They did
not seek to kill them because they rejected the Christians' God."

This is inaccurate. They killed Christians for being atheists, because they did not believe in the state gods. Is this Ms. Leftwithnowits a "historian?"

The problem with living in a metaphysical sewer... is that regardless how nice the sewer is
...no one wants to visit you anyway

Really? That's helpful to know.

In their most extreme forms, monotheistic religions are deeply intolerant.

I do not defend "monotheistic religions." If it has the wrong go...

The Roman authorities threw Christians to the lions because they
mistook the early Christians' intolerance for seditiousness. They did
not seek to kill them because they rejected the Christians' God."

This is inaccurate. They killed Christians for being atheists, because they did not believe in the state gods. Is this Ms. Leftwithnowits a "historian?"

The problem with living in a metaphysical sewer... is that regardless how nice the sewer is
...no one wants to visit you anyway

Really? That's helpful to know.

In their most extreme forms, monotheistic religions are deeply intolerant.

I do not defend "monotheistic religions." If it has the wrong god or gods, its idolatry. Christianity, however, while unequivocally claiming exclusivity, is not in the least intolerant.

In fact, we are required to not merely tolerate, but to love our enemies (our failure to obey God's commands are not the fault of God's commands)

Toleration, however, does not mean treating lies as though they were true. That would be a little foolish, wouldn't it?

Consider:

ME: (looking at a dog) Boy, what a gorgeous tree!

YOU: (being "tolerant") Yes, indeed, what lovely leaves it has.

If that is what you intend by tolerance, than no, Christianity is not tolerant.

If, however, toleration means that I bring you some food in your metaphysical sewer, uphold your God-given rights while you deny that same God, do what I can to help your family thrive, then Christianity is very tolerant.

By the same token, I will do what I can to remove the noseplugs and hip boots (provided there are extra layers of appropriate garments underneath) so you don't think that your sewer is the garden you could live in.

Oh, sorry, www.exchristian.hell

Oh look, another ad hominem.

1. Your evidence is underwhelming
2. You answered it yourself - "he tends to worship idols". Too bad you don't apply your critical thinking towards your own cult.
3. You have no better idea of what or who "the real god" is over anyone elses idea.
4. The wonderful bible. See #1 for the short answer or begin at this link as a first step to real knowlege about the validity of the bible.
5. Don't take my word that your are just plain wrong. Listen to other [url=http://onlysometimesclever.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/the-great-divide-jr-or-where-i-stand-o...

Oh, sorry, www.exchristian.hell

Oh look, another ad hominem.

1. Your evidence is underwhelming
2. You answered it yourself - "he tends to worship idols". Too bad you don't apply your critical thinking towards your own cult.
3. You have no better idea of what or who "the real god" is over anyone elses idea.
4. The wonderful bible. See #1 for the short answer or begin at this link as a first step to real knowlege about the validity of the bible.
5. Don't take my word that your are just plain wrong. Listen to other christians tell you how wrong you are.
6. The fact that you look at atheism as a religoin reveals how misguided and wrong you are. Sadly I suspect that this is not due to ignorance, which can be fixed with knowledge, but as a result of intellectual dishonesty.
7.Still doesn't refute that prayer doesn't work, and those people you just insulted are more likely to be red blooded christians than not. Nice.
8. Please point out your athesist/secularist wars. I'm curious if you are going to try and use Hitler and Stalin as examples (which would be wrong).
9.Right, that whole god sent himeslf to sacrifice himself to appease himself to save us from the punishment he himself will put on us for committing a sin that he put into motion. The logic is astounding. Religion is a great source for comedy.

the purpose was to explore an ex-Christian's position on religion

AHHH !!!! Hilarious !!! Tell that to Oortcloud too . That has been my point from the beginnig. Now the fact they claim to be ex-Christians matters? Wow ! Such lightweights. You need to re-read this thread!

This is not specific to exchristian, christian, morman, pagan, zuesian, mexican, italians, young, old, men, women, or any other specific group. It is a series of points that anyone can consider about religion. Christianity has very little to offer in the way of proof of their claims other than the bible or an appeal to people's fear about the afterlife. The points made above highlight a whol...

the purpose was to explore an ex-Christian's position on religion

AHHH !!!! Hilarious !!! Tell that to Oortcloud too . That has been my point from the beginnig. Now the fact they claim to be ex-Christians matters? Wow ! Such lightweights. You need to re-read this thread!

This is not specific to exchristian, christian, morman, pagan, zuesian, mexican, italians, young, old, men, women, or any other specific group. It is a series of points that anyone can consider about religion. Christianity has very little to offer in the way of proof of their claims other than the bible or an appeal to people's fear about the afterlife. The points made above highlight a whole slew of areas that fail critical thought. It doesn't matter who presents it or who considers it, the fallacy is just there.

I don't know why I should be suprised that you would try to dismiss something simply based on who presents it, its not like thats a new technique in your arsenal of denial.

1. How do you know what my evidence is? I didn't provide any.

2. I do apply my critical thinking in my understanding of God...why do you think I don't? Because I disagree with you?

3. How can you know the Christian God is "no better?"

In order to claim that no one idea is better than the others, you have to assert a complete knowledge of

a)the Christian God,

b)all other ideas about gods,

c)which one is the true idea (your's),

d)in order to assert that they are all equally true, and

e)if they're equally true, then you're illogical, because their respective claims are logically mutually exclusive

(besides that, if they're all equally true, then my idea is as true as your ide...

1. How do you know what my evidence is? I didn't provide any.

2. I do apply my critical thinking in my understanding of God...why do you think I don't? Because I disagree with you?

3. How can you know the Christian God is "no better?"

In order to claim that no one idea is better than the others, you have to assert a complete knowledge of

a)the Christian God,

b)all other ideas about gods,

c)which one is the true idea (your's),

d)in order to assert that they are all equally true, and

e)if they're equally true, then you're illogical, because their respective claims are logically mutually exclusive

(besides that, if they're all equally true, then my idea is as true as your idea, so you need to believe my idea as much as you believe your own).

Since my Christianity provides a reason to believe the laws of logic have universal application, their mutual exclusivity means they can't all be equally true.

...

...


4. You are amazingly ignorant about the reliability of the Bible, and I
don't have time to keep looking at your equally ignorant links. If you
ever get serious about it, I'd be glad to offer some scholarly
recommendations. Attacks on the reliability of the Bible are about as
stupid as they come. I just don't have another nicer way to say it.
Accept it or reject it, it is an externally and internally consistent
and reliable book, not that that is what makes me believe that it is
God's Word.

5. Do you really want to play the numbers game about what Christians
believe? I'd be glad to take you up on that challenge.

If I told you
I was an atheist, would you believe me? If not, why ...

...


4. You are amazingly ignorant about the reliability of the Bible, and I
don't have time to keep looking at your equally ignorant links. If you
ever get serious about it, I'd be glad to offer some scholarly
recommendations. Attacks on the reliability of the Bible are about as
stupid as they come. I just don't have another nicer way to say it.
Accept it or reject it, it is an externally and internally consistent
and reliable book, not that that is what makes me believe that it is
God's Word.

5. Do you really want to play the numbers game about what Christians
believe? I'd be glad to take you up on that challenge.

If I told you
I was an atheist, would you believe me? If not, why not?

6. The fact that you don't look on atheism as a religion shows how self-deluded you are.

7.Not trying to refute that prayer doesn't "work"...don't need to. Nor did original clip refute that prayer does
"work." If there are Christians who think cold beer, cable tv and a
Honda makes them civilized, then they need to quit thinking like
atheists.

8. WWI, WWII, Communist Revolution (any of the dozens of them), Korean,
VietNam, and I would even argue, with little sympathy from some of my
comrades, the wars with Iraq (at least our involvement).

That's just the
wars, doesn't include the eugenicists abortionists anarchists and just
plain old mass murdering criminals (VT?) warring privately against God's
order. 20th/21st century atheists/secularists are drenched in blood.

9.I don't defend "religion," only Christianity.

I suppose you'd rather
have a god who needs to ask you for help about what to do and a god
capable of sinning (a god who resembles...<surprise> you!) than a
God who is absolutely holy, absolutely wise, knows absolutely
everything, controls absolutely everything, and is capable of creating
a universe which has sin in it for which He is not culpable, but for
which He provides the remedy. You can have your impotent god.

Oh give me a break. You and wilhelm both opened up with an ad hominem
attack against the source site in your opening statements.

Ok, then, to be fair (is that an atheist moral?), anytime you question the reliability of my sources, I get to call it ad hominem, too. I can play that. Ready? Your attacks on the Bible are ad hominem.

If you don't want to play your game anymore, we can revert back to the real meaning of ad hominem, which is a precisely-defined law of logic. Of course, that means you have to assume the universality and existence of laws of logic, too.

Ad hominem would be saying that you must be wrong, because AcesLucky says the same thing you just said. That...

Oh give me a break. You and wilhelm both opened up with an ad hominem
attack against the source site in your opening statements.

Ok, then, to be fair (is that an atheist moral?), anytime you question the reliability of my sources, I get to call it ad hominem, too. I can play that. Ready? Your attacks on the Bible are ad hominem.

If you don't want to play your game anymore, we can revert back to the real meaning of ad hominem, which is a precisely-defined law of logic. Of course, that means you have to assume the universality and existence of laws of logic, too.

Ad hominem would be saying that you must be wrong, because AcesLucky says the same thing you just said. That's an ad hominem attack, and that's a logical fallacy.

If however, you said "The Georgia Bulldogs stink, because AcesLucky told me so," and I said "AcesLucky? He's a Georgia Tech fan, you can't trust him." That's not ad hominem. That's an attack on the credibility of your source.

That you
openly lie and try and decieve readers that you didn't is mind boggling
considering they can just go back and read it for verification.

If you want to disagree with me, fine. Calling me a liar, particularly when you are the one who apparently likes to spout logical-sounding terms without knowledge, is totally out of line.

Disagreeing with you or correcting your sloppy use of terms is not lying or deceiving (quite the opposite). You may not like it and you may want us to stop it, but try to be big enough to leave out the nasty and uncalled for character attacks.

You are amazingly ignorant about the reliability of the Bible, and I don't have time to keep looking at your equally ignorant links

Well that comes as no suprise - as I've maintained all along, you believe because you want to believe and dismiss anything that challenges your belief. Your are a prime example of why faith is such a dangerous thing - it does not allow you to discover when you are wrong.

Accept it or reject it, it is an externally and internally consistent and reliable book,

You are in denial. As you point out we have crossed this subject before. But since it is beyond you to even contemplate the information at the few sources I've presented then we...

You are amazingly ignorant about the reliability of the Bible, and I don't have time to keep looking at your equally ignorant links

Well that comes as no suprise - as I've maintained all along, you believe because you want to believe and dismiss anything that challenges your belief. Your are a prime example of why faith is such a dangerous thing - it does not allow you to discover when you are wrong.

Accept it or reject it, it is an externally and internally consistent and reliable book,

You are in denial. As you point out we have crossed this subject before. But since it is beyond you to even contemplate the information at the few sources I've presented then we must agree that you are and immutable and blind. Anyone else can simply search the internet to find the preponderance of evidence revealing the bible for what it is.

not that that is what makes me believe that it is God's Word.

Then please, tell me where any knowledge you have of god would come from if the bible was entirely removed as a source of information?

You can wiggle and weave and dodge and deny all you want, but anything that you think you know about your god comes form the bible. Even if you are your run of the mill christian who has never read the book and base their entire belief system on regurgitated sunday sermons, it all ultimatelyl comes from the bible.

I suppose you'd rather have a god who needs to ask you for help about what to do and a god capable of sinning

I don't need a god. I can handle reality. If there is a real god/creator and he wanted me to know, I would know.

God who is absolutely holy, absolutely wise, knows absolutely everything, controls absolutely everything, and is capable of creating a universe

There you go applying omnis again. Contradicts "free will" and responsibility.

is that an atheist moral?

morality is a human concept. Atheism is a lack in belief of a god claim.

anytime you question the reliability of my sources, I get to call it ad hominem

I would concur if that is what you had done. I cannot help that you are too thick to see the difference.

An ad hominem is an attack against the source without actually addressing the substance. It's really as simple as that. Both of you opened up with a direct dismissal of the source. willhelm's was admittedly more implied over your more direct attack. To try and suggest you were merely questioning the reliability of the source is just facetious.

we can revert back to the real ...

read more»

is that an atheist moral?

morality is a human concept. Atheism is a lack in belief of a god claim.

anytime you question the reliability of my sources, I get to call it ad hominem

I would concur if that is what you had done. I cannot help that you are too thick to see the difference.

An ad hominem is an attack against the source without actually addressing the substance. It's really as simple as that. Both of you opened up with a direct dismissal of the source. willhelm's was admittedly more implied over your more direct attack. To try and suggest you were merely questioning the reliability of the source is just facetious.

we can revert back to the real meaning of ad hominem

Please do.

Calling me a liar, particularly when you are the one who apparently
likes to spout logical-sounding terms without knowledge, is totally out
of line.

I don't use the term lightly. You are an obvious liar. I can begrudge you some lenience if you are simply speaking incorrectly from ignorance, but you have already made it clear that you are close minded in your beliefs so its hard to correct people that refuse to listen to reason.

but try to be big
enough to leave out the nasty and uncalled for character attacks.

It's not a character attack when its truthful and proven. You continue to support and present claims that have been proven as false; YEC, the bible as consistant and reliable, the success of prayer, these are just a few of the false claims you promote. Your admittance that you refuse to examine alternate information to your beliefs is just further proof that you are a intellectually dishonest person. What makes it worse is that you try to decieve others with your fallacious arguments.

For clarification--My pointing out the bloody wars of atheism (forgot
to mention French Revolution, and I think I could make a case for the
War for Southern Independence, as well, but those aren't the last two
centuries) does not in any way mean I excuse or condone Christians who
have fought unjust wars.

So because the wars you mention were not obviosly based upon religious belief then they are wars of atheism? I'm sorry, but that just gave me a good laugh. It sounded like you implied that they aren't "real" wars unless they are religious, but that's just me being facetious.

But seriously. In truth, those wars where not based upon atheism. People where not attacking and kill...

For clarification--My pointing out the bloody wars of atheism (forgot
to mention French Revolution, and I think I could make a case for the
War for Southern Independence, as well, but those aren't the last two
centuries) does not in any way mean I excuse or condone Christians who
have fought unjust wars.

So because the wars you mention were not obviosly based upon religious belief then they are wars of atheism? I'm sorry, but that just gave me a good laugh. It sounded like you implied that they aren't "real" wars unless they are religious, but that's just me being facetious.

But seriously. In truth, those wars where not based upon atheism. People where not attacking and killing each other because they did not believe in god or killing people because they did. That you would simply lump any "non religious" war as an atheistic war really goes to show how deluded you are. Or misinformed? I'll allow you to determine which.

you believe because you want to believe

I believe because it is true.

dismiss anything that challenges your belief

No, only the stupid stuff, or things I've already considered. Are you honestly telling me that you are not dismissing the stuff that challenges your own belief?

faith is such a dangerous thing

Depends on what the faith is *in.* Faith does not stand by itself. A belief in the ability of human reason to know all things is a blind and dangerous faith. Surely you would not contend that faith in the universality of the laws of logic is a dangerous thing, would you? So you can't say blankly that faith is a dangerous thing.

[quote...

you believe because you want to believe

I believe because it is true.

dismiss anything that challenges your belief

No, only the stupid stuff, or things I've already considered. Are you honestly telling me that you are not dismissing the stuff that challenges your own belief?

faith is such a dangerous thing

Depends on what the faith is *in.* Faith does not stand by itself. A belief in the ability of human reason to know all things is a blind and dangerous faith. Surely you would not contend that faith in the universality of the laws of logic is a dangerous thing, would you? So you can't say blankly that faith is a dangerous thing.

You are in denial.

No, you are. I am in recognition and acceptance of the Bible as the authoritative completely true and free from error Word of God. You deny that, not me.

contemplate the information

You use the term "information" too loosely.

we must agree that you are and immutable and blind

Do you even think before you type? I can change and I can see. What makes you think that I agree that I can do neither of these?

Anyone else can simply search the internet to find the preponderance of evidence

Now we're getting to some answers. Probably 98% or more of my research on the textual reliability of the Bible comes from books, journals and other printed material.

That's not to say that there is no value to internet research, but you should at least in honesty acknowledge that if the internet is your primary source, you've barely begun to scratch the surface of the material on this subject.

You...

we must agree that you are and immutable and blind

Do you even think before you type? I can change and I can see. What makes you think that I agree that I can do neither of these?

Anyone else can simply search the internet to find the preponderance of evidence

Now we're getting to some answers. Probably 98% or more of my research on the textual reliability of the Bible comes from books, journals and other printed material.

That's not to say that there is no value to internet research, but you should at least in honesty acknowledge that if the internet is your primary source, you've barely begun to scratch the surface of the material on this subject.

You certainly have no grounds to say that I have not considered the evidence and imply that you have.

tell me where any knowledge you have of god would come

The
universe He created and any other means He chose to reveal Himself.
Who knows, maybe He would send me a DVD or IM. God can show Himself to
whomever He wants however He wants. What's your point? People didn't
have the whole Bible for most of human history, you know.

But, you missed my point. My point was that though the evidence
supporting the reliability and accuracy is high, it is not that
evidence that compels my recognition of it as God's authoritative
self-revelation. I wasn't saying that I didn't need the Bible for knowledge. I was saying that the evidence for its reliability is not what convinces me it ...

tell me where any knowledge you have of god would come

The
universe He created and any other means He chose to reveal Himself.
Who knows, maybe He would send me a DVD or IM. God can show Himself to
whomever He wants however He wants. What's your point? People didn't
have the whole Bible for most of human history, you know.

But, you missed my point. My point was that though the evidence
supporting the reliability and accuracy is high, it is not that
evidence that compels my recognition of it as God's authoritative
self-revelation. I wasn't saying that I didn't need the Bible for knowledge. I was saying that the evidence for its reliability is not what convinces me it is God's Word.

You see, my mind is not my god. My God made my mind and satisfies it
with many evidences of His existence, His Word and all sorts of other
things. But my faith does not rest on my ability to know, much less
understand, all the evidence.

Even what I do know (which is at least more than the average Joe,
though much less than an expert), I only know by reading what others
have written. I have actually reviewed all 30 something thousand
manuscripts, or any number of other evidences. You don't know that
your sources aren't lying, either. You trust them, and I don't. You
have reasons, and so do I.

I'm sorry for addressing your comments out of order. My screen doesn't appear to update completely and I only catch that I missed a comment when I check my email.

How do you know what my evidence is? I didn't provide any.

Its an implied evidence to your claim that your god is real. I admit that I am not fluent on what beliefs you have personaly cherry picked from the bible, so my statement is more general towards the common christian beliefs. There is also the very lack of evidence that you provided for your statement "yes there is" to the original point #1 "There is no god". Your lack of evidence to support the statement was 'underwhelming'. That you point out that you provid...

I'm sorry for addressing your comments out of order. My screen doesn't appear to update completely and I only catch that I missed a comment when I check my email.

How do you know what my evidence is? I didn't provide any.

Its an implied evidence to your claim that your god is real. I admit that I am not fluent on what beliefs you have personaly cherry picked from the bible, so my statement is more general towards the common christian beliefs. There is also the very lack of evidence that you provided for your statement "yes there is" to the original point #1 "There is no god". Your lack of evidence to support the statement was 'underwhelming'. That you point out that you provided no evidence is quite ironic to me.

why do you think I don't [apply critical thinking]? Because I disagree with you?

Because you point out that mankind worships idols, himself, and his reasoning as a means to falsify their belief and label it as 'sin'. You have become critical in your examination of mankind as a means of supporting your belief, but then fail to apply those same criticisms to the belief that you hold in your own god. It paints you as a hypocrit to hold yourself above examination.

How can you know the Christian God is "no better?"

Every religion makes a claim of god and they all have the same evidence (or lack there of) to support their claim. When it gets right down to it religion is simply a matter of choice heavily influenced by culture. Your beliefs are no better than someone elses.

You dismiss any other option because you have chosen your religion. This does not make you right, it makes you close minded. Your faith blinds you.

You can wiggle and weave and dodge and deny all you want, but anything
that you think you know about your god comes form the bible.

Are you kidding? Have I ever even for one minute pretended not to affirm the Bible as God's authoritative verbal self-revelation? Wiggle and weave? You have got to be joking.

There is no need to deny anything. What do you think I'm denying?

Well, I will deny one thing--that *anything* I know about God comes from the Bible. That's not true. Even the Bible does not claim that. It specificly references all sorts of ways God reveals Himself. I know God from the sunset or from the gentle rain that has been falling in Georgia almost every day...

You can wiggle and weave and dodge and deny all you want, but anything
that you think you know about your god comes form the bible.

Are you kidding? Have I ever even for one minute pretended not to affirm the Bible as God's authoritative verbal self-revelation? Wiggle and weave? You have got to be joking.

There is no need to deny anything. What do you think I'm denying?

Well, I will deny one thing--that *anything* I know about God comes from the Bible. That's not true. Even the Bible does not claim that. It specificly references all sorts of ways God reveals Himself. I know God from the sunset or from the gentle rain that has been falling in Georgia almost every day since our Governor asked us to pray for rain a few weeks ago.

I know He loves me because the Bible tells me so, but I also know it when in the wee hours the soft warm foot of my wife who I do not deserve rests against my leg. I know His power because of His description of it to Job and to the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel, but I also know His power because of how He has redeemed me from the depths of my own wretchedness.

So, I will deny that *any* knowledge I have is from the Bible, but that is in no way a denial of its necessity, perfection, consistency, reliability, truthfulness, perspicacity, or authority.

I emphatically do not wiggle away from that, and I don't know what you're even thinking to suggest I would do that or have any reason at all to do that.

I do acknowledge the Bible as the authoritative norm of all other sources of knowledge, including itself.

The point is that it is God Himself who convinces a person.

Then why do I need people like you telling me what is right or what is wrong or what is moral? Why do I need to listen to your interpretation of the bible if god is going to convince me?

Our minds are way too finite to even begin to do any one of the above steps. Only God can turn a person's heart to believe.

So I'll just sit back and wait for god to turn my heart then. I am not responsible for my actions because god does not have a need of me to believe in him so allows me to wallow in confusion. Nice.

mounds of evidence supporting that belief I have

Apologetics, redefinition, dismi...

The point is that it is God Himself who convinces a person.

Then why do I need people like you telling me what is right or what is wrong or what is moral? Why do I need to listen to your interpretation of the bible if god is going to convince me?

Our minds are way too finite to even begin to do any one of the above steps. Only God can turn a person's heart to believe.

So I'll just sit back and wait for god to turn my heart then. I am not responsible for my actions because god does not have a need of me to believe in him so allows me to wallow in confusion. Nice.

mounds of evidence supporting that belief I have

Apologetics, redefinition, dismissal, and faith? The bible is true because it says its true? C'mon. A bit circular don't you think?

I can handle reality.

How would you know? I'm only part joking.

My counter is that for you to say you do not need God shows that you do not know reality, and are therefore even less capable of "handling it."

I gladly admit to not being able to handle reality. Without God, my next breath would not come. For me to think I can handle anything without His good providence would be foolish.

By His strength and mighty power, though, there is nothing I cannot face. That is why I have no reason, nor does any Christian, to fear examining any "evidence" or so-called arguments attacking my faith.

I am not afraid of truth and have no need to fear it, and welcome and embrac...

I can handle reality.

How would you know? I'm only part joking.

My counter is that for you to say you do not need God shows that you do not know reality, and are therefore even less capable of "handling it."

I gladly admit to not being able to handle reality. Without God, my next breath would not come. For me to think I can handle anything without His good providence would be foolish.

By His strength and mighty power, though, there is nothing I cannot face. That is why I have no reason, nor does any Christian, to fear examining any "evidence" or so-called arguments attacking my faith.

I am not afraid of truth and have no need to fear it, and welcome and embrace it. I have no doubt that I have beliefs that are wrong, and I have in the past and hopefully will in the future reform my thinking when I am shown to be in error. I'm not afraid of that. My mind is not my god, nor do I have a blind faith of its capability of knowing reality apart from God's graciously equipping and revealing.

If there is a real god/creator and he wanted me to know, I would know.

We are in complete agreement on this point. I pray that in His time He will show Himself to you.

There you go applying omnis again. Contradicts "free will" and responsibility.

You keep saying that, am I asking too much to want you to demonstrate it? What is contradictory about an all powerful God being able to create beings who will freely choose to do exactly what He wants them to do? I do not see the contradiction.

I freely chose to plop my arse in *this* chair and select *this* mug (slurp) from which to drink my coffee. Why *must* that mean that God could not *also* have chosen for me to sit in *this* chair and drink from *this* mug? There is no contradiction.

But, perhaps you can *show* me differently. I am sure you can assert it again and again, so if that is all you plan to do, don't waste our time.

Well, I will deny one thing--that *anything* I know about God comes from the Bible. That's not true.

What you list does not teach you of god, it is simply an application of credit towards a belief you wish to maintain. Without the bible then you would have simply enjoyed such beautiful things for the wonders that they are rather than attributing them to god as a means to reaffirm your faith.

I know He loves me because the Bible tells me so

Personally I'd have gone with "I know it because I can feel it", but that's just me. In either case its an appeal to emotion with no substantial support.

I know His power because of His description of it to Job and to t...

read more»

Well, I will deny one thing--that *anything* I know about God comes from the Bible. That's not true.

What you list does not teach you of god, it is simply an application of credit towards a belief you wish to maintain. Without the bible then you would have simply enjoyed such beautiful things for the wonders that they are rather than attributing them to god as a means to reaffirm your faith.

I know He loves me because the Bible tells me so

Personally I'd have gone with "I know it because I can feel it", but that's just me. In either case its an appeal to emotion with no substantial support.

I know His power because of His description of it to Job and to the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel

Ah ... from a book. Second Hand. From a story told many hundreds of years ago. A story of a man, whos family is wiped out simply to satisfy the wager of a "loving" god. Nice.

So, I will deny that *any* knowledge I have is from the Bible

Without the bible and the knowledge of god that is there you would not view the things you described above as being the work of god. Your knowledge of god is based entirely from the bible. That you can attribute what you experience to that of god does not make it knowledge outside the bible. It makes it tainted by your knowledge of the bible. Your statement of *any* is incorrect.

I do acknowledge the Bible as the authoritative norm of all other sources of knowledge, including itself.

That was a joke right? It's sad when I cannot tell the difference when talking to you believers sometimes. You've gone beyond circular into mobius.

Without God, my next breath would not come. For me to think I can handle anything without His good providence would be foolish.

Kinda supports the claim that "religion is a crutch for the weak minded" (thanks Gov. Ventura)

By His strength and mighty power, though, there is nothing I cannot face

Don't you mean to say that there is nothing humanity can accomplish that you won't just attribute to god? Got insurance? Use doctors? If you truly believed god would take care of you then there are many things that you depend on in this life provided by humanity that you would no longer use.

You keep saying that, am I asking too much to want you to demonstrate it?...

read more»

Without God, my next breath would not come. For me to think I can handle anything without His good providence would be foolish.

Kinda supports the claim that "religion is a crutch for the weak minded" (thanks Gov. Ventura)

By His strength and mighty power, though, there is nothing I cannot face

Don't you mean to say that there is nothing humanity can accomplish that you won't just attribute to god? Got insurance? Use doctors? If you truly believed god would take care of you then there are many things that you depend on in this life provided by humanity that you would no longer use.

You keep saying that, am I asking too much to want you to demonstrate it?

I thought I had before in another thread ... Ok, its very simple. Assuming the omni's of god (all powerful, knowing, loving, kind, etc) then you have to accept that he created the universe exactly as he wanted. No moment can pass that he is not aware of or planned. To then say that people have free will when everything they say or do has already been planned is contradictory. Every choice you make he already knows of and by a simple tweak here or adjustment there at the beginning of time he would effect the outcome. He CANNOT not know what you will decide if he is all knowing (omniscient). There is no decision you can make that was not already planned by an omniscient and omnipotent god.

There is no choice. He knows all of reality. He created the universe. It's like a painter using blue to paint a subjects eyes and then condeming the painting as trash for having blue eyes.

There is no contradiction

And the choice you make is the same choice god designed you to make etc etc...and you call that free will when you perform exactly as you were designed to? It's a logical conclusion. If you do exactly as you were designed to do then you have no free will.

My reference of the website was expressly an attack, using the literary
device of verbal irony, on the credibility on your source

Since you altered .com to .hell its an obvious ad hominem no matter what way you slice it. For crying out loud, take your lickings on it and get over it. You even admit it as an attack based exclusively upon the name and source of the site. You offered nothing else to refute the credibility other than that slandering alteration.

We're done. You have disqualified yourself from civil discourse and just plain good manners. I wish you well.

You know what they say about the door ... I owe no one respect that continually refuses to even ...

My reference of the website was expressly an attack, using the literary
device of verbal irony, on the credibility on your source

Since you altered .com to .hell its an obvious ad hominem no matter what way you slice it. For crying out loud, take your lickings on it and get over it. You even admit it as an attack based exclusively upon the name and source of the site. You offered nothing else to refute the credibility other than that slandering alteration.

We're done. You have disqualified yourself from civil discourse and just plain good manners. I wish you well.

You know what they say about the door ... I owe no one respect that continually refuses to even acknowledge sources countering their claims, redifines common language to suit their needs, or accuses me to have little or no concept of logic.

The known universe is now believed to be 14 billion years old and millions of light years in size. The earth, compared to the universe, relatively, isn't the size of a virus.

Notice that the above quote says it is "believed"
This is faith. It is faith in "educated" guesses that we have absolutely no way of verifying. It was once "believed" that giant sauropods had hip joints like lizards. if it were true, they would have had to dig trenches to walk in so their bellies would not scrape the ground.

6: The only source of information for any of the world's religions is from vague and unknown authors without any substantial historical verification.

If you subject the Bible to normal tests used...

The known universe is now believed to be 14 billion years old and millions of light years in size. The earth, compared to the universe, relatively, isn't the size of a virus.

Notice that the above quote says it is "believed"
This is faith. It is faith in "educated" guesses that we have absolutely no way of verifying. It was once "believed" that giant sauropods had hip joints like lizards. if it were true, they would have had to dig trenches to walk in so their bellies would not scrape the ground.

6: The only source of information for any of the world's religions is from vague and unknown authors without any substantial historical verification.

If you subject the Bible to normal tests used to verify any other historical document- it comes up very reliable.

Notice that the above quote says it is "believed" This is faith

The age of the universe was not arbitrarily generated by someone with everyone else simply having faith that they were right. The value we currently hold comes from observation and deduction based upon understood concepts. You could technically say I had "faith" in the value because I accept it based upon the level of trust I have in those who have done the math, but the value itself is not based upon faith.

I don't have the expertise to point out all aspects used to come by that number, but the simple answer is that we can extrapolate backwards from what we know today. If I *really* wanted to challenge the age va...

Notice that the above quote says it is "believed" This is faith

The age of the universe was not arbitrarily generated by someone with everyone else simply having faith that they were right. The value we currently hold comes from observation and deduction based upon understood concepts. You could technically say I had "faith" in the value because I accept it based upon the level of trust I have in those who have done the math, but the value itself is not based upon faith.

I don't have the expertise to point out all aspects used to come by that number, but the simple answer is that we can extrapolate backwards from what we know today. If I *really* wanted to challenge the age value I could educate myself in the relevant fields to determine the value directly.

The sauropod example is actually quite a nice example to present on how the scientific method of understanding is superior over simply accepting and believing by faith. Any understanding or discovery *must* be reproduceable to allow anyone to test and challenge any declaration to determine its validity. In doing so the knowledge becomes stronger. Even when proven wrong everyone benifits because our knowledge has improved. Faith has a problem with this as many people simply accept blindly because they have been told to.

If you subject the Bible to normal tests used to verify any other historical document- it comes up very reliable

I'm not sure how you can come by this conclusion. There are obvious grammatical, historical, and edited problems with the bible. Maybe you could explain what kind of tests you mean? Because it names real places and people? So does the Illiad.

Maybe Oortcloud is too polite to say it but I'm not, you religious fanatics are all brainwashed sheep!
So when we were bacteria like organisms at the start of our existence climbing out of the primordial swamps was there any religion? Was there an afterlife? Was there heaven?
Religion was created by very clever people to control everyone, spectacular natural occurrences like meteors and eclipses were attributed to a god like entity.

What better way to control people than to give them the fear of going to hell.

The bible is sooooo inaccurate and deceptive that you'd have to be braindead to take any notice of it!

I used to believe in god because it was drummed into me constantly ...

Maybe Oortcloud is too polite to say it but I'm not, you religious fanatics are all brainwashed sheep!
So when we were bacteria like organisms at the start of our existence climbing out of the primordial swamps was there any religion? Was there an afterlife? Was there heaven?
Religion was created by very clever people to control everyone, spectacular natural occurrences like meteors and eclipses were attributed to a god like entity.

What better way to control people than to give them the fear of going to hell.

The bible is sooooo inaccurate and deceptive that you'd have to be braindead to take any notice of it!

I used to believe in god because it was drummed into me constantly as a child but once I was old enough and wise enough to make my own mind up I realised it for what it is, rubbish!

I honestly wish there was a god and for him to come sort this planet out but there isn't and until someone can show me hard evidence and not some daft book that has probably been translated and re-translated until it's barely recognizable in it's origins, I'll continue enjoying my life as it is and having the free will to make my own decisions and not be brainwashed into devoting my life to a book of fairytales.

I hate jumping in late, but after reading a majority of the comments I'd like my two cents.
Humans are not 'sinful', or 'evil' it isn't 'human nature' to be either of the aforementioned. The first 'religions' or spiritual beliefs that we have evidence for were animistic and revolved around the Earth, NOT Christianity, it is fnny to me how so many people argue that Christianity is the 'right' way, the only way.
Religion itself has always been 1) a means to explain the unexplainable. To cope with things the people could not understand. If there is a drought...you sacrifice a goat and the next day it rains, hey! Why not try it again. It's not that illogical, we look for patterns and s...

I hate jumping in late, but after reading a majority of the comments I'd like my two cents.
Humans are not 'sinful', or 'evil' it isn't 'human nature' to be either of the aforementioned. The first 'religions' or spiritual beliefs that we have evidence for were animistic and revolved around the Earth, NOT Christianity, it is fnny to me how so many people argue that Christianity is the 'right' way, the only way.
Religion itself has always been 1) a means to explain the unexplainable. To cope with things the people could not understand. If there is a drought...you sacrifice a goat and the next day it rains, hey! Why not try it again. It's not that illogical, we look for patterns and solutions to our problems. 2) A moral code of some sort, or a way of controlling the population. 3) A model for haw to live.
Also, most religions, when broken down to the 'skeleton' are essentially the same. The language, the name(s) of the power(s) that be, the way the messages are conveyed, may be different, but the structure is the same.
The fact that the Greeks 'stole' from the Egyptians, the Romans took from the Greeks etc etc (every religions basis is borrowed from a preexisting faith is my point) just adds to the issue.
Faith is not a bad thing to have. I am a very spiritual person, however, I am also a scientist, so I look at both sides and when science doesn't answer the questions I have, that is where faith comes in. When you are so blinded by your faith that you ignore or adamantly refute an opposing view, that is when bad things (like holy wars) happen.
I am WAY off topic Oh well, had to get that out there. Had dinner with my family who always make rude comments about my Darwin sticker on my car.

oortcloud i think that the prefacing remark that:

a wooden box that he pretends is an African relic. “If you have negative sentiments toward religion,” he tells them, “the box will destroy whatever you put inside it.”

as you read he then increases the personal value of the objects that are to be placed within the box resulting in inceasing reluctance.
i think it is less a matter of trust than the suggestion of supernatural action that caused the consequent hesitation of the students.

though i grant i would not have participated either - and it ain't because of no african relic.

i wished however to draw attention to the idea of "belief" as a product or by-product of adapti...

oortcloud i think that the prefacing remark that:

a wooden box that he pretends is an African relic. “If you have negative sentiments toward religion,” he tells them, “the box will destroy whatever you put inside it.”

as you read he then increases the personal value of the objects that are to be placed within the box resulting in inceasing reluctance.
i think it is less a matter of trust than the suggestion of supernatural action that caused the consequent hesitation of the students.

though i grant i would not have participated either - and it ain't because of no african relic.

i wished however to draw attention to the idea of "belief" as a product or by-product of adaptive traits.

what did you think of the article?

(this exchange is now well over 70 entries - is there a short cut we can try)

Read more >> Options >>

Ok, then I did understood the description of the box and what it represented. What I cannot believe to be accurate is how the professor would label the hesitation/delay of people to put more personal belongings into the box as a unconsciouses fear of god or fear of the supernatural.

On the other hand I do feel that the majority of people in this world have been indoctrinated to not use their minds. They are taught to accept the supernatural as readily as they accept other ordinary things. I keep wanting to think of these people as idiots, but to be honest, their beliefs are not a result from any limitation in their mental faculty. They have simply been conditioned to accept the absurd and ...

Ok, then I did understood the description of the box and what it represented. What I cannot believe to be accurate is how the professor would label the hesitation/delay of people to put more personal belongings into the box as a unconsciouses fear of god or fear of the supernatural.

On the other hand I do feel that the majority of people in this world have been indoctrinated to not use their minds. They are taught to accept the supernatural as readily as they accept other ordinary things. I keep wanting to think of these people as idiots, but to be honest, their beliefs are not a result from any limitation in their mental faculty. They have simply been conditioned to accept the absurd and attribute the unknown as supernatural.

If people do honestly hesitate or not participate in such experiments because they fear some divine retribution then that is a sad testament to humanity in this day and age. If its because they are worried they are somehow being duped or tricked then that is quite understandable. That would be why I would distrust - that I was going to get an electric jolt or a hand full of crickets or something with my reaction caught on camera for a funny video show.

We protect our personal valuable objects from unnecessary risk not because we fear there are dark things out there trying to take them, but because we, well, like them. We don't want to have them damaged or lost over someone else's stupid idea of fun.