I wonder why theists feel the need to come here

[Vexer]

Hi.I'm new to this board.Just wondered why theists felt the need to post here.Is it out of an overwhelming desire to 'save" us Aethists or what?Believe me I consider myself "saved" already because I have rejected religion.

Why can't you just leave us to our fate.After all we only have ourselves to blame.What irritates to me is that most of your discourse is not in the true and honest spirit of intellectual exchange.Rather, it always descends into some primitive diatribe.You actually give us more reason to remain Aethist by posting and continually exposing yourselves, reminding some of us of why we are not religious.

[Pexio]

Here's my short answer. Many of the theists that post here are of the "born-again" variety. While most would think of this phrase in a figurative sense, to be "born-again" is to literally have one's psyche, one's inner self overwritten with a new one - one subservient to God's Will. Alas, the erasure is temporary, unfortunately, and must constantly be re-internalized and reinforced through the self-hypnosis of proselytizing. And who better to preach to than a bunch of raving atheists? They are not "saving" us - they are "saving" themselves. Now ya know....

[Philboid Studge]

I'm glad that theists come here. Some of the most entertaining posts in this forum come from the argumentation between True Believers and rational people. It is also an education to see how these people think -- and don't think.

[Southerner]

I have noticed that all throughout history, believers always try to actively spread their ideas. They still do it today. It is as if they think all other religions are a type of sickness for which theirs is the cure. IT IS MY BELIEF that most theists will never be able to accept any beliefs other than their own, at least in my lifetime. Remember acceptance does not mean adoption. There are many people in the world who believe that there exists a supernatural being who is responsible for everything else in existence. Okay, so what? I am not mad at them for their beliefs being different than mine.
Like I said above, those goodly people are just spreading the word to needy folks like us, so we can be well.

[Gunther]

Yeah, but we don't want that. It's anoying. We've heard it all before. Most of us grew up with the shit being crammed into our ears by parents, teachers and government figures. We're sick of it.
Christianity isn't about converting people. It's about helping people.
The Thiests on this forum should save the money that they spend on thier internet connection and give it to the homeless. After all, thats what christianity is about.

[Jwalker4life]

Yeah, but we don't want that. It's anoying. We've heard it all before. Most of us grew up with the shit being crammed into our ears by parents, teachers and government figures. We're sick of it.
No one enjoys listening to people who are trying to shove down their throats their beliefs. I can understand how you might be sick and tired of hearing the same old thing all the time. However, theists feel the need to come here because they want to share the truth they have discovered through the Bible. Christians are called to share the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who do not believe so that they might believe. It's not because we enjoy debates and arguments, or because we simply want to be "right", it's because we love Christ, and Christ loves the world, so we want to simply please Him by obeying Him. Anyway, when you come to know Christ as your savior and as the truth, you can't help but tell people about Him and the Bible.

Christians shouldn't come here to argue or debate their beliefs. They should be coming here to share what the Bible says with unbelievers while having a loving and gentle nature, not a brawling one.

[chris26]

I was Christian when I came here. I was interested in enlightening myself, learning and seeing why atheists believe what they believe. Pure curiosity on my part.

[Rhinoqulous]

If Christians and other theists didn't come here, who would we argue with?

[elwalvador]

I was Christian when I came here. I was interested in enlightening myself, learning and seeing why atheists believe what they believe. Pure curiosity on my part.
So Chris26, are you saying that this great web-site helped you realize that there is no god? That would be amazing, this site is changing people 1 at a time.

But really all these religious people are not trying to save us, no no no, they are trying to save them selves from hell. By impressing God and showing that they are good christians they are selfishly benefiting from it. Which is why so many of them do it.

[Jwalker4life]

No. Real Christians don't do that. Real Christians know that you can't "gain points" with God by spreading around theistic beliefs so they'd be saved from hell. People go to hell not because God decided that's where they go. They go because THEY decided to reject God. Obviously, if they rejected God, why would they go to Heaven? Every true Christian should know that you get to Heaven by faith in Christ and the redemption offered to us through His death and resurrection. Anyway, God looks at the heart of the person, and if they are sharing their beliefs for selfish rewards, there is no reward for them.

[chris26]

So Chris26, are you saying that this great web-site helped you realize that there is no god? That would be amazing, this site is changing people 1 at a time.

But really all these religious people are not trying to save us, no no no, they are trying to save them selves from hell. By impressing God and showing that they are good christians they are selfishly benefiting from it. Which is why so many of them do it.
I did not come to that conclusion. The only conclusion that I came to was that it is impossible to prove or disprove god. I'm still partly christian.

But really all these religious people are not trying to save us, no no no, they are trying to save them selves from hell. By impressing God and showing that they are good christians they are selfishly benefiting from it. Which is why so many of them do it.
Afraid not. We're simply refuting your atheism with our theism in a debate (most of the time friendly although it gets pretty tense). I came here in order to learn more about different philosophies and make myself a more well rounded person.

[Cynical]

Whithout theists coming here it would be kind of boring...

[Charlotte]

No. Real Christians don't do that. Real Christians know that you can't "gain points" with God by spreading around theistic beliefs so they'd be saved from hell.
Real Christians?? So does this exclude believers who think Grace is merited by good works? Does this exclude Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Jehovah witnesses and any other Christian tradition that is not tied to Luther or Calvin? The truth is: Christians are of many stripes. Many believe that converting others is a good work, hence they merit more Grace.

People go to hell not because God decided that's where they go. They go because THEY decided to reject God. Obviously, if they rejected God, why would they go to Heaven?
Again, this is no different then the Nazi who said because Jews refused to convert they chose to be interred into a concentration camp.

Every true Christian should know that you get to Heaven by faith in Christ and the redemption offered to us through His death and resurrection. Anyway, God looks at the heart of the person, and if they are sharing their beliefs for selfish rewards, there is no reward for them.
Actually the Bible is conflicted about how one merites grace which is why there are so many different denominations. The baptists think it is by faith and baptism one gets grace. The Anabapists think it is only by grace and resistence to social injustice. The Catholics think it is by good works, and mainstream think it is only via faith. The Bible backs ALL of these different sentiments. An educated Christian would know there isn't any "true christian".

[Selden]

If there is a 'true' Christian, it would be one who follows every single verse in the bible to the letter. This must include things like not wearing clothes of two different fibres, not planting two different crops in the same field, routinely killing gays, taking slaves from neighbouring countries, subjecting women to silence, etc. etc. etc.

But I'm pretty sure when I was in church we were told to spread the word. Although that was a few years ago.

[Somnus]

Er.. didn't the last Christian die on the cross? :/

[Selden]

Probably.

[Spurius Furius]

Yeah, but we don't want that. It's anoying. We've heard it all before. Most of us grew up with the shit being crammed into our ears by parents, teachers and government figures. We're sick of it.
No one enjoys listening to people who are trying to shove down their throats their beliefs. I can understand how you might be sick and tired of hearing the same old thing all the time. However, theists feel the need to come here because they want to share the truth they have discovered through the Bible. Christians are called to share the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who do not believe so that they might believe. It's not because we enjoy debates and arguments, or because we simply want to be "right", it's because we love Christ, and Christ loves the world, so we want to simply please Him by obeying Him. Anyway, when you come to know Christ as your savior and as the truth, you can't help but tell people about Him and the Bible.

Christians shouldn't come here to argue or debate their beliefs. They should be coming here to share what the Bible says with unbelievers while having a loving and gentle nature, not a brawling one.
Jwalker4life-

You are presuming to speak for all theists in describing why theists come to this site, I will ignore this and assume that you are describing your reasons for coming. These reasons are valid and honest, but there are a few things you may want to consider.

As a theist coming to an atheist site, you do not have the luxury of "sharing" your truths, you will have to prove your truths and defend them. The burden of proof is definiteley on you. In the short time I have been here, I can tell you that there are atheists on this site who have an enormous wealth of knowledge and excellent debating skills (I am not one of them, but I learn something new everyday!).

If you come here without an open mind, and it appears that you have given your statements above, you will be in for a tough time. If you are arrogant and refuse to acknowledge the refutations of others, you will be eaten alive (figuratively of course).

All this being said, I hope that I can learn something new from you, and I wish you good luck!

[3.14]

I came upon the recommendation of a friend. (Techno)

[elwalvador]

No. Real Christians don't do that. Real Christians know that you can't "gain points" with God by spreading around theistic beliefs so they'd be saved from hell. People go to hell not because God decided that's where they go. They go because THEY decided to reject God. Obviously, if they rejected God, why would they go to Heaven? Every true Christian should know that you get to Heaven by faith in Christ and the redemption offered to us through His death and resurrection. Anyway, God looks at the heart of the person, and if they are sharing their beliefs for selfish rewards, there is no reward for them.
The only reason why any person accepts this "God" theory to be ture is because they don't want to go to hell. That is selfish, you are only doing it to save your-self just admitt it. All humans are selfish, even when some body gives a donation to a charity or a gift to a freind they are doing it because it makes them feel good. Like I wanna see my brothers face when I buy him a PSP for he's birthday it makes me feel good that he is happy, so even though it may not seems selfish... it IS.

[thomas]

So, I'm here for a few reasons. I came across the forum by a convoluted route whilst looking for internet resources about Christianity, and was drawn to the mainly intelligent debate that was going on. Actually at the time, nutritionguy was transforming from an impassioned champion of Christianity to an impassioned critic of the same. It was a fascinating process to observe.

One reason for being here is that I want to test my faith and my reasons for believing to make sure I've got a firm foundation for my beliefs. So aside from study, I can see no better way of doing this than finding strong opponents of those beliefs to debate and discuss with. I find it helps eliminate lazy thinking.

Another reason is that I find myself irritated by some of the thinking and assertions about Christianity I see on this forum and want to help present the best case I can for my beliefs. Hopefully, those truth-seekers amongst you will see that all that is written by the atheist community about organised religion is not true and sometimes pretty wide of the mark. If you don't believe in Christianity I'd like you to not believe in it for the right reasons.

[Spurius Furius]

Just out of curiosity, thomas, what would it take for you to change your mind and for you to stop believing in god?

Nobody here can prove to you beyond a doubt that god does not exist. You will not be able to prove in a logical, rational sense that he does. It is like an intense tic-tac-toe match that keeps going and going and every time ends in a draw. No level of detailed debate gets past this fact. It would seem to me that this forum will make you a better debater, and more knowledgeable about the assetions of athiests, but I do not see how it will test your "faith". Yes, thats the operative word isn't it, "faith".

On your other point, I do not believe in Christianity for every reason, I am glad that some of those are the right reasons :D

[thomas]

Just out of curiosity, thomas, what would it take for you to change your mind and for you to stop believing in god?
That's a good question, and one I've thought about a little. I think there are two stumbling blocks for me. The first is the value I place on my personal experience of God. I'd need to be persuaded that I was deluded in those experiences. The second is that I'd need to overcome my gut, instinctual feeling that there is some great truth in Christianity, despite any misgivings I may have.

Nobody here can prove to you beyond a doubt that god does not exist. You will not be able to prove in a logical, rational sense that he does. It is like an intense tic-tac-toe match that keeps going and going and every time ends in a draw. No level of detailed debate gets past this fact. It would seem to me that this forum will make you a better debater, and more knowledgeable about the assetions of athiests, but I do not see how it will test your "faith". Yes, thats the operative word isn't it, "faith".
I just mean that I think that my faith should be "reasonable", that is that there should be some evidence and reason that points in the direction of my beliefs even if they are unproven. But I look at these proofs as supplementary to my experience of God, not as foundational.

[Spurius Furius]

But don't you see thomas, without grounding yourself in proof, you will always find some sort of reason and evidence that you can use to support your "faith", because it seems to me that deep down you expect it to be true. Everybody's mind is prone to play tricks on them when they mix what they want and expect with a search for what is real. This is why I think that logic and objective proof are so important, if for no other reason than to weed out desire and perception from actual truth.

You have made several references to your prsonal experience with god. how can you be sure that your human mind which is extremely creative but flawed is not taking you for a ride? Maybe what you had was a sort of placebo effect where your mind gave you what you strongly wanted and believed?

[z3n]

This is probably a little off topic of the thread, but I just couldn’t help myself in responding to this:

I just mean that I think that my faith should be "reasonable", that is that there should be some evidence and reason that points in the direction of my beliefs even if they are unproven.
You have logically and by definition contradicted yourself with this statement. Faith, with regards to religion, is conviction and acceptance of a statement as true despite the lack of reason. Faith persists, or even thrives, in the absence of reason. If you have reason to accept a statement or proposition as true, then you no longer require faith. Faith and reason cannot exist in the same person at the same time with regards for the same piece of knowledge. Therefore ‘reasonable faith’ is a contradiction in terms.

If reason points to a belief then it is no longer a belief but knowledge. You may think that some piece of evidence points to a belief, but if it isn’t reasonable then it really isn’t evidence in any meaningful since of the word. How can reason point to something that is unproven? Belief (like faith) persists in the absence of proof. Knowledge and reason evaporate with lack of proof because they have no conviction or even ability to remain. And if proof (or knowledge) happens, then faith is no longer required and disappears.

[TruthSeeker]

z3n brings up some interesting points about faith and reason.

Faith and reason cannot exist in the same person at the same time with regards for the same piece of knowledge. Therefore ‘reasonable faith’ is a contradiction in terms.
This sounds good, but I don't completely agree. Faith isn't "conviction and acceptance of a statement as true despite the lack of reason". I may have tremendous faith that I can jump to the moon, however logic shows me that that is not reasonable faith. Take faith in God, is it reasonable up to the point of being unable to absolutely prove it? In my view, yes it is. At that point faith takes over, being reinforced and supported with reason. I believe this is what Thomas means by "reasonable faith". (Thomas, feel free to correct me if I have put words in your mouth incorrectly).

As someone stated earlier, no one will succeed in absolutely proving or disproving the existence of God. I believe that as we approach that point, the atheist view also takes faith. If you can't absolutely prove He does not exist, then you must "believe" that He does not exist. Where logic and reason end, faith must take over. Christians get bashed for having a "blind faith", but in my opinion, atheism takes more faith.

[ChiefOfAss]

Please show me the error of my ways.

Bear with me here:
If God were to appear to a Christian and tell him 2+2=4, the Christian would have to accept this (despite any reservations) AND ask God for forgiveness for those reservations. Obviously, the presents problems for accountants, engineers, and people who actually use numbers.

If God were to appear to a person who knows there is no such thing as god and tell him.... well, it would matter what he heard god say, because the non-believer would seek professional help.

The point is: Theists come here because it helps them suspend the pain that surely comes from lying to yourself. Or, they here voices.

Yes, what I'm saying is that if you claim to believe in God (or anything, for that matter), you are lying to yourself, willingly or unwillingly; or, you have a severe mental illness. If the latter, get help (but stay away from faith based hospitals that will only further your illness).

If you aren't crazy, yet you are still a Christian who honestly can look into the mirror and say your not lying to yourself, then what's it like?

I mean, how do you know that while your praying to God, your not angering the "True God"? How could you answer the questions on a science test (I don't mean this to be sarcastic) without saying to yourself, "Wait a minute, where is Heaven and what force energizes it's existence?" Which, if yourself this, how did you not also ask yourself, "Never mind where Heaven is, I know where Hell is supposed to be... but it's clearly not in the center of the Earth." How about during a college biology class when you must have realized that it is impossible for man to have come from two individuals? Or how the mass of the Earth would still contain too much heat, only six days after it's "Creation" to support life... how did that work when you were solving physics questions?

Do you think God made the physical world and all it's natural laws just to break them on the first day? Or, did you fake your way through school just to get the grade? Maybe you went to Bible college... I dunno. But, you can't possibly think that the Bible contains literal truths about human history, so... how do you know what is figurative and what is meant to be taken seriously?

Lots of people who study the Bible and are respected theologically admit that Revelations was a clever editorial of the Roman Empire... and it was never meant to be taken literally. So, basically... I mean... how does any of it work for you?

In all sincerity, I would really like to have a Christian describe the operating principles of their world. It won't even bother me if you try to convert me or save me. It is worth it to me to gain understanding into a world that I do not understand. I promise not to fight with you about it, but I may ask more questions.

So, if I'm being honest... I have to admit that I don't think anybody will do it. If someone did, it would suprise the Hell into me.

[TruthSeeker]

ChiefOfAss,

One of the reasons I posted on this thread is because I, like you, would like to understand "the operating principles" of the other's world. I don't propose to have all the answers about God, human beings, the Earth, the universe, and all of creation. Anyone who does claim to completely understand all these things is foolish. I think man's finite brain (certainly this man's) can't fully comprehend an infinite God.

But as I stated earlier, both of us, atheist and Christian, have to take by faith what we cannot prove. My faith is in a person. An historical person. Yet my faith is based on (and I'm sure you probably diagree) reason and logic. The evidence for His life, death and resurrection is compelling.

[Little Earth Stamper]

To me, the question I always have for people of specific faiths is why they don't believe in other faiths.

What makes you think that your experience of god is true, but the experiences of Native Americans and Hindus and Haitian voodoo practitioners are not?

And what exactly is the compelling evidence that Christ came back from the dead, and what makes it more compelling then the evidence for the historical Buddha or Quetzalcoatl?

[z3n]

Faith isn't "conviction and acceptance of a statement as true despite the lack of reason". I may have tremendous faith that I can jump to the moon, however logic shows me that that is not reasonable faith.
But you just proved my point with your statement. You have to have faith to accept that you can jump to the moon because your ability to do so defies logic and reason (logic and reason go hand in hand). If your ability to jump to the moon were based on reason (logic and sound evidence would also play a part) then you wouldn’t need faith to think that you could do it, you would know that you could do it.

Take faith in God, is it reasonable up to the point of being unable to absolutely prove it? In my view, yes it is. At that point faith takes over, being reinforced and supported with reason.
Reason doesn’t support faith it replaces it. Faith is how humans accept things without using rational demonstration. Rational demonstration is the only method that humans use for gaining knowledge though reason. Without it they can have no knowledge of something and must accept it on faith if they are going to accept it at all.

I believe that as we approach that point, the atheist view also takes faith. If you can't absolutely prove He does not exist, then you must "believe" that He does not exist. Where logic and reason end, faith must take over.
I sounds like your trying to make it sound like atheism and theism are based on the same premises. Sorry but atheism is held because of reason and theism is held because of faith.

Faith is how you believe in something, not how you don’t believe in it. Do you have faith that Santa Clause doesn’t exist? I don’t believe that Santa Clause exists based on reason, logic, and evidence. I don’t believe that god exists for the same reasons. By saying that atheists take “faith” to not believe in a god is the same as saying that it takes faith for a Christian to not believe in Allah. Faith is not what you don’t believe, it’s what you believe. Atheists don’t believe in the existence god and therefore the position has nothing to do with faith.

My faith is in a person. An historical person. Yet my faith is based on (and I'm sure you probably diagree) reason and logic. The evidence for His life, death and resurrection is compelling.
If your “faith” were really based on reason and logic then you would not have to have faith to hold it. However I am wagering that you merely have faith that your faith is actually based on reason and logic. I’m not going to go into right now, but if you spend at least a little bit of time at this forum I’m sure that you will come to realize that maybe there isn’t as much reason and logic behind your faith as you thought.

I hope you stick around and get a chance to see if you really are a “truth seeker” as your alias suggests. But you should ask yourself if your really willing to take follow the truth wherever it might lead.

[Lucretius]

But as I stated earlier, both of us, atheist and Christian, have to take by faith what we cannot prove. My faith is in a person. An historical person. Yet my faith is based on (and I'm sure you probably diagree) reason and logic. The evidence for His life, death and resurrection is compelling.
Or there is no evidence for the existence of a man called Jesus. Sorry, there was no historical person called Jesus Christ that got crucified. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[ChiefOfAss]

But there is some evidence. How can you say that he didn't exist? Maybe his name wasn't actually Jesus, and maybe Jesus represents a bunch of dudes who were kicking up dust in those days. But as ancient history goes, nobody complains when we accept other non-religious formitive figures with equally sketchy details.

History is less concerned with whether his name was Jesus than the dynamics of the time he lived in, his impact, and how to figure out why he was turned into a god. It's important, I would think most important to Christians... because if I thought Jesus was the son of God and all that, I would want to make sure that 2005 years from the day Osama bin Laden is "crusified", my great, great, great, grandchildren won't be praying to him instead.

I'd also be a little worried that even Christianity presents stunning similarities to Jesus and his flock and the modern equivalent.

For atheists, I think acknowledgment of what Jesus was is important if we want to avoid the fate of the Romans.

[z3n]

But there is some evidence. How can you say that he didn't exist? Maybe his name wasn't actually Jesus, and maybe Jesus represents a bunch of dudes who were kicking up dust in those days.
There is? Well I’m sure that there are a lot of people here that would love to see it (oh and if you’ve been reading other threads you will of course know that the Bible is not evidence). You could always start your search at http://www.jesusneverexisted.com and go from there. :)

But as ancient history goes, nobody complains when we accept other non-religious formitive figures with equally sketchy details.
Well other non-religious figures didn’t claim to be a god, or have said to have performed ‘miracles’ or raise people from the dead. Remember, “Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence”.

For atheists, I think acknowledgment of what Jesus was is important if we want to avoid the fate of the Romans.
And what do you think Jesus was? What was he compared to Krishna, or Mohammad?

[HMS Beagle]

A lot of theists probably come here as foxes to a chicken coop, little suspecting they're going to encounter eagles. But some, surely, are troubled souls because they're stuck believing they have a soul when all logic and reason is against it. I know perfectly rational people who are Christians. Ultimately, I believe that faith is an emotion, not an idea. Consider: insulting someone's god is a like insulting someone's mama-- a hot button to push. The great irony is that faith requires intelligence: only Homo sapiens are cursed with faith.

[PanAtheist]

A lot of theists probably come here as foxes to a chicken coop, little suspecting they're going to encounter eagles.
Excellent compliment!

I know perfectly rational people who are Christians.
Perhaps you could bring them here to demonstrate their perfect rationality? :-)

Ultimately, I believe that faith is an emotion, not an idea.
I am confused! Is that an emotion or an idea? :-)

Consider: insulting someone's god is a like insulting someone's mama-- a hot button to push.
Consider: A person acting as if they can and do believe in insane absurdities, is insulting everybody everywhere, and is insulting the whole universe!

The great irony is that faith requires intelligence: only Homo sapiens are cursed with faith.
Theistic animals! What a curious idea! :-)
(Oh no! Now I've thought of Narnia! Talking Animals!)

[Little Earth Stamper]

Frankly, I'm sort of more impressed with Christ if he's fictional; It would mean the person or persons who created him came up with one of the most compelling characters in literary history, and that's something to admire.

As for faith, atheism really does require less faith then theism, simply because it makes most sense to start with nothing, and only add things to your world view as they are proven. A philosophy that assumed that all possibilities existed until such time as they were disproven would be simply untennable. In a philosophy like that, you would have to assume, since you have no proof otherwise, that aliens were going to land on your house at the same time mole-people came up from the ground to kidnap you, and take action to prevent this.

That said, we do have to have some faith to live our lives. How many of you have seen proof that black holes exist with your own eyes? How about direct observations of Einstein's theory of reletivity? Have you personally measured the speed of light?

Maybe you've done all these things, but I haven't. For all I know, all these things could be elaborate hoaxes. I take it on faith that they are not hoaxes.

Or, to take a more down-to-earth example, I have faith that a streetlight will not show green to both streets of an intersection at the same time. But technically, I don't really know this unless I take the mechanism apart and examine it.

To me, this is what is meant by "faith based on reason". Given that we are mortal, we must take some things on faith in order to survive; we simply don't have time to know everything.

[Lucretius]

I defended by atheism like so:

We all know 100% certainty is literally unattainable. Scientific theory is the best human knowledge we can get, because it is based on observable, often reproducible, real things. In this world everything is a possibility, yes, and so logically, as human beings we make our choices because we can reason. Because everything is a possibility, we take the most likely thing and say it "will happen." The sun will rise because it has been doing so for a few billion years. Simply because the chance exists for it NOT to rise, does not mean I assume it won't. Now, inversely, the chance of the sun not rising is so slim I say it is not a possibility.

God, based on reasoning, rationalizing probabilities, does not exist. I can say so because out of the thousands of years of man's existence, there has been no evidence of such a being in recorded history. I take personal testimony with a grain of salt, because it isn't really evidence of a supernatural being. If thousands of people said they felt a gremlin in their heart would gremlin's be real? Certainly not. With science progressing, the need for a God to explain things has shrunk more and more. Even now, atheistic universal origins can be theorized (thanks to the work of Carlo Rovelli.) More and more it seems like God is just an answer for those who don't really want to find the answers out. His existence has not been shown, and so it is only rational to assume, especially after thousands of years, that he does not exist.

Take for example: the big invisible teleporting bear in your room that cannot be detected by any form of technology. You've never touched it, you've never seen it, and you never will. But it's there. Now would it be more rational to say "The bear is there" or "The bear isn't there." Obviously the latter of the two. No evidence of God allows me to say he does not exist. I'm not going to claim the existence of something because it is unevidenced. That goes against reason.

God is the big invisible teleporting bear, and it is only logical to say he does not exist; because the possibility is so low, it is none.

[HMS Beagle]

The assumption that light travels at 186,000 miles per second is not a matter of faith, let alone personal experience. It's the result of recorded observation and-- I'm talking to you, Little Earth Stamper -- humility before wiser heads than ours.
What would be a matter of faith is believing that the Sun will NOT illuminate a new morning every 24 hours.

[Little Earth Stamper]

...
If thousands of people said they felt a gremlin in their heart would gremlin's be real? Certainly not. ...
Actually, they might. While people say that science is not a matter of opinion polls, repeatability is a hallmark of the scientific method.

Your only evidence of, say, the existence of photons is that thousands of people say they have seen them (Or seen evidence of them, to be precise). Additionally, photons have characteristics that are contradictory and nonsensical; they are both wave and particle, something that is deeply inconsistant on the level of human logic (as a particle is a thing(noun), and a wave is a form of action(verb)).

Why, then, should we take the idea that photons exist more seriously then the idea that god exists? I believe there are two reasons.

First, internal feelings have been repeatedly shown to be rather untrustworthy in various tests. Therapeutic Touch practioners, for example, say they can "feel" a person's aura, but numerous tests have shown that they cannot. In more mundane settings, our feeling of how probabilities "should be" is often off to a large extent. Our internal feelings aren't terribly reliable.

Secondly, and I think more importantly, the evidence we get from these internal feelings is highly contradictory; some people strongly feel the presence of the Christian god, some feel the presence of the greek pantheon, some feel the presence of voodoo loas, and some feel nothing at all.

The hypothesis that the Christian religion (Or any one religion) is true does a very bad job of explaining these discrepencies in experimental results. Rivaling hypotheses, such as the idea that religion is a human invention, or the New Age idea that all religions are garbled psychic transmissions from "Ultraterrestrials" do a much better job of explaining available data, thus they should be taken more seriously.

Given that the "human invention" hypothesis does a good job of explaining available data, and also introduces no new elements, we take it the most seriously.

[Little Earth Stamper]

The assumption that light travels at 186,000 miles per second is not a matter of faith, let alone personal experience. It's the result of recorded observation and-- I'm talking to you, Little Earth Stamper -- humility before wiser heads than ours.
The late Pope or the Dalai Lama have probably traveled more and observed more then you. In numerous ways, they are probably much wiser then you are. Yet you reject their ideas about god. You also reject recorded information about visions of god.

Why is that?

[Philboid Studge]

You also reject recorded information about visions of god.
If by "reject" you mean "laugh uncontrollably at," then count me in. I wouldn't reject this so-called information if it were testable scientifically (as is, say, the speed of light).

[HMS Beagle]

Thanks, Philboid. As for you, L.E.S., I would only add that if traveling is the key to wisdom, then you should be worshiping stewardesses.

[Little Earth Stamper]

The assumption that light travels at 186,000 miles per second is not a matter of faith, let alone personal experience. It's the result of recorded observation and-- I'm talking to you, Little Earth Stamper -- humility before wiser heads than ours.
The late Pope or the Dalai Lama have probably traveled more and observed more then you. In numerous ways, they are probably much wiser then you are. Yet you reject their ideas about god. You also reject recorded information about visions of god.

Why is that?
I think the mountain pixie has been at the pixie dust again.

Hobo's travel the united states in boxcars gaining wisdom and knowledge about the country, but they are generally not admired for their great wisdom. Also, they reek.
Yes, lord knows that traveling widely, talking with many different kinds of people, and having a wide range of experiences with the highs and lows of humanity could never lead to wisdom. I don't know what I was thinking.

And Phil, that's exactly what I was trying to get at; You believe scientists because of testability; If you wanted to, you could test every scientific theory you came across and verify it or yourself.

But frankly, neither you nor I have the time for that. Your evidence that light travels at the speed of light is third-hand; You haven't measured it, you read a book by someone you've never met which was published by a comitee of even more people you haven't met. You believe the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, but you haven't observed it.

I think that the ideas noted scientists have about the universe are more reliable then those religious leaders have, but this has little to do with the fact that scientists are "wise men". Saying I should trust someone because they are wiser then I am is just an argument from authority, and it's stupid.

I already outlined my reasons for believing scientists more then theologians, but I'll recap.

1. Methodology. The observational tools of scientists are demonstrably more accurate then those of theologians.

2. Repeatability. If I wanted to, I could verify for myself everything I've ever read about quantum mechanics.

But unless I actually do verify all these things myself, there is still an element of belief/trust involved. It's based on rationality, but it is faith nonetheless.

[TruthSeeker]

A few more thoughts about faith and reason:

Rational demonstration is the only method that humans use for gaining knowledge though reason. Without it they can have no knowledge of something and must accept it on faith if they are going to accept it at all.
As for my silly example of being able to jump to the moon. It is not reasonable, yet has not been demonstrated to be true or false. Based on your premise, since it has not been demonstrated, you cannot truly know whether I can do it or not. Therefore, as you say you "must accept it on faith" that I cannot do it. That is faith based on reason.

Likewise, I believe you would admit that you cannot definitively demonstrate that God does not exist, so "rational demonstration" is not possible. One of the basic tenets of the scientific method is, as LES points out, the repeatability of an experiment with corresponding results. You can't perform an experiment that proves His non-existence. So, based on the evidence you see (or choose to accept), you make a step of "reasonable faith". Likewise, based on the evidence I see (and choose to accept), my reasonable faith says He does exist. By the way, I don't espouse relativism in this, we can't both just choose our own reality. One of us is dead wrong.

I agree with LES, that emotions alone are unreliable as a gauge of truth. I have seen people deceived by a lie, but because they had an emotional experience, they accept it as truth. That's one thing that irritates me about some Christians, a total reliance on faith without reason. Almost an "I don't want to question anything, I'll find out when I get to heaven" attitude. To me that is unacceptable.

As for evidence, one of the things I look at is the intricacies of creation (nature, the function of the universe, the human body, etc.) The human hand, for example. It can perform the wide-ranging tasks from threading a needle to smashing someone in the face. It is precise, yet also powerful. To look at something as awesome as that and not think perhaps Someone intelligent designed it for its various functions is, in my mind, to turn away from an intelligent conclusion. And there are numeous examples of things infinitely more complex than this. Basically intelligent design requires an intelligent designer.

[truthmonger]

If something designed to smash someone in the face is your idea of intelligent design, perhaps you should reconsider your definition of intelligence.

If humans are so complex that we require a designer, then whatever designed us must be even more complex, thus requiring an even more complex designer, which would require an even more complex designer, and so on, ad infinitum. Theists say, “Everything requires a designer, but not everything requires a designer. Let me explain…”

If you conclude that complex things must have been created by an intelligent designer, how can something as complex as a god be exempt from your conclusion? If you cannot offer any rational, compelling explanation of god’s origin, why do you demand one of the universe? If you allow some kind of logic that says god just always existed, period, no other explanation required, why don’t you just use that same logic to explain the universe?

[TruthSeeker]

If you conclude that complex things must have been created by an intelligent designer, how can something as complex as a god be exempt from your conclusion? If you cannot offer any rational, compelling explanation of god’s origin, why do you demand one of the universe? If you allow some kind of logic that says god just always existed, period, no other explanation required, why don’t you just use that same logic to explain the universe?.
God is exempt from needing an origin because He is the intelligent designer of all things. That is a difficult concept but nonetheless true. In my very limited understanding of the universe, it is dymanic. Our understanding of it is ever increasing based on our observations. Those observations tell us that the sun has a finite amount of energy and it is diminishing. They also tell us that the universe is expanding. These observations logically lead to an origin (i.e. the sun cannot infinitely lose energy and the universe cannot infinitely expand). God is outside of time and matter (He created them, so He can't be of them)and therefore is not limited to those constraints. Seems logical to me.

[Rhinoqulous]

God is exempt from needing an origin because He is the intelligent designer of all things. That is a difficult concept but nonetheless true. In my very limited understanding of the universe, it is dymanic. Our understanding of it is ever increasing based on our observations. Those observations tell us that the sun has a finite amount of energy and it is diminishing. They also tell us that the universe is expanding. These observations logically lead to an origin (i.e. the sun cannot infinitely lose energy and the universe cannot infinitely expand). God is outside of time and matter (He created them, so He can't be of them)and therefore is not limited to those constraints. Seems logical to me.
The question is: how the hell do you know this? Does the bible state that God is a non-spatial non-temporal entity? It seems god always shows up in some physical way; walking through the garden of eden, a burning bush chattin' with Moses, a whirlwind to admonish Job, etc. As for your argument for why this makes sense, your parents created you, does that mean they exist outside of space and time? No this doesn't seem logical. Seems delusional to me.

Rhinoq

[Lucretius]

God is exempt from needing an origin because He is the intelligent designer of all things. That is a difficult concept but nonetheless true. In my very limited understanding of the universe, it is dymanic. Our understanding of it is ever increasing based on our observations. Those observations tell us that the sun has a finite amount of energy and it is diminishing. They also tell us that the universe is expanding. These observations logically lead to an origin (i.e. the sun cannot infinitely lose energy and the universe cannot infinitely expand). God is outside of time and matter (He created them, so He can't be of them)and therefore is not limited to those constraints. Seems logical to me.
The whole argument fails when one applies the Law of Parsimony. God is not necessary when viewing the origins of the universe. The laws of physics break down in to the Planck Epoch, and so there is no time necessary for change to occur within this era. Carlo Rovelli, who is working hard on the Quantum Gravity Loop, came upon a mathematical postulation as to how state evolution can occur WITHOUT time, and everything works. God is not necessary. So, when applying the Law of Parsimony (basically Occam's Razor) "Pluralities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", God, the plurality, is not necessary, and so should be removed.

[truthmonger]

I know gravity works because when I drop things, they fall. I could observe entropy with scientific measuring equipment. How did you observe and conclude that god is the intelligent designer of all things? Basically your answer amounts to nothing more than saying "it's true just because." You claim that god is outside of time and matter because he created them, whatever that means. Can you please support your claim with facts and evidence? If it's so obvious that he created time and is outside of it, please explain it in simple, logical terms, just like I can demonstrate gravity by dropping something.

You and every other theist offer nothing more than a priori reasoning, simply stating your conclusion as fact and refusing to consider even the most rational arguments to the contrary.

[TruthSeeker]

Rhinoqulous, okay then, what is the better (more reasonable) explanation for the complexities of creation - the human brain, for instance. Did that amazingly complex system happen by chance? No designer?

And as for my parents, they didn't create me. They had sex, but they didn't create the sperm and the egg, the process by which fertilization occurs, and the development and nourishment in the womb. They had no power to create life, only to utilize the things inside them that had been created. This is all by chance?

[TruthSeeker]

Truthmonger, no I can't support my claim of the existence of God with conclusive "facts and evidence" that will convince you of His existence. Just as you can't prove conclusively His non-existence. That is precisely my point. We both must take on faith at the point where our ability to demonstrate falters.

[Rhinoqulous]

What is more reasonable, Natural Selection producing the human brain, a theory backed by volumes of scientific evidence, or myths and fairy tales of an invisible Sky Daddy, a concept ripe with logical inconsistencies? Lucretius has a great point you also need to address: our current physical theories of the origin of the universe don't need the existence of god, so why should we add god to the equation at all?

Rhinoq

[truthmonger]

If you must take something on faith, you are admitting that it can't be taken on its own merits, and if it can't be taken on its own merits, then what good is it? You need to understand the nature of logical discussion: no one proves the non-existence of anything. That's not how it works. Prove that an inside-out square circle does not exist. Do you see what I mean? Prove that one DOES exist, and now we're getting somewhere, and the way to prove it is to show it to people. Prove your god.

[TruthSeeker]

We all (myself included) tend to look for evidence to substantiate our preconceived ideas. I look at creation and see the handiwork of God. Someone else, one who excludes the possibility of an intelligent designer, might look at the same evidence and conclude that it happened by chance. My point is that both conclusions require faith, because neither can be experimentally demonstrated.

[truthmonger]

Another assumption on your part: that all people look for evidence to substantiate their preconceived ideas. Not true. Smart people look for ways to find out if their preconceived ideas are wrong. That’s the basis for the scientific method, and it sure has done a lot for the human race that faith never would have. Put your ideas to the test, try to destroy them with logic and rational analysis, if they can withstand the test then they’re good ideas, but if they don’t pass the test then you are a fool to hang on to them. Ask yourself, how would I know if I was wrong?

[solidsquid]

Indeed, always question.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Me, I don't think the idea of an intelligent designer is incredibly irrational, but religious beliefs that are complicated then "an intelligent designer exists" tend to be poor theories.

Christianity is a sort of constellation of theories, many of which are poor explainers of the physical world, and many more of which are simply pointlessly complex.

Generally speaking, we try to avoid needlessly complex theories. If, for example, my car stops running, there are several theories I could formulate to explain this. I could theorize that the spark plugs broke, or I could could theorize that they were stolen by a group of angry clowns who were fleeing the circus after stealing all the ringmaster's money.

While the clown theory is possible, it contains so many specific and unnecessary elements that some, if not all of them, are likely to be wrong.

[ocmpoma]

Theists say, “Everything requires a designer, but not everything requires a designer. Let me explain…”
God is exempt from needing an origin because He is the intelligent designer of all things. That is a difficult concept but nonetheless true.
And there ya go...

Hey, TSeeker - if God is the designer of all things, then God designed itself, right?

[HMS Beagle]

The assumption that light travels at 186,000 miles per second is not a matter of faith, let alone personal experience. It's the result of recorded observation and-- I'm talking to you, Little Earth Stamper -- humility before wiser heads than ours.
The late Pope or the Dalai Lama have probably traveled more and observed more then you. In numerous ways, they are probably much wiser then you are. Yet you reject their ideas about god. You also reject recorded information about visions of god.

Why is that?
We have learned more from Dolly the sheep than Dalai the Lama.

[Philboid Studge]

Dolly the Llama was a cloned llama, wasn't he?

Isn't the Dalai Lama a frigging atheist? All that world-travelin' must have paid off in wisdom ...

[HeWhoAsks]

I already outlined my reasons for believing scientists more then theologians, but I'll recap.

1. Methodology. The observational tools of scientists are demonstrably more accurate then those of theologians.

2. Repeatability. If I wanted to, I could verify for myself everything I've ever read about quantum mechanics.

But unless I actually do verify all these things myself, there is still an element of belief/trust involved. It's based on rationality, but it is faith nonetheless.
It is not faith, but rational extrapolation. I believed that Taiwan was a country before I ever went there to experience for myself for some very good reasons. I would have had to had believed that newspapers, geography books, etc., were in a vast conspiracy about this non-existant county in order to suspect that Taiwan wasn't a country. We build up a great wealth of assumptions about the world based on a very good estimation of how reliable sources are. Lord knows newspapers get about half of what they write incorrect, but not, the vast majority of the time, about things like whether a country actually exists.

Science is in a similar situation. If we are rational, we build up a great wealth of assumptions about whether science is trustworthy in general based on how reliable it is in the relatively few areas (compared to the entire scientific enterprise) in which we have direct experience. This is nothing like faith. It is a reasonable extrapolation based on evidence. Direct evidence is not the only type of evidence, nor do we need absolutely perfect evidence in order to reasonably conclude something for some practical purpose. Faith is belief with no or poor evidence. Even if evidence is not absolute nor direct, it may still be sufficient to make a rational, not faith-based, conclusion.

[z3n]

As for my silly example of being able to jump to the moon. It is not reasonable, yet has not been demonstrated to be true or false. Based on your premise, since it has not been demonstrated, you cannot truly know whether I can do it or not. Therefore, as you say you "must accept it on faith" that I cannot do it. That is faith based on reason.
I do not have to accept it on faith that you can’t jump to the moon. I know that you can’t because it is physically impossible for you to do so. Human muscles lack the capability to jump even a fraction of the distance that it would take for one to jump to the moon. Common knowledge of human anatomy therefore lets anybody know that a human (or any animal for that matter) cannot jump to the moon, even if it has never been demonstrated.

Likewise, I believe you would admit that you cannot definitively demonstrate that God does not exist, so "rational demonstration" is not possible.
I never said that I (or anyone) could, but that doesn’t mean that all notions of god that I have come across or have come up with are irrational and logically inconsistent.

So, based on the evidence you see (or choose to accept), you make a step of "reasonable faith".
That’s why religion and belief in god is based on faith. No one can prove or disapprove a deity’s existence. Therefore it comes down to if one decides to hold notions of god on faith or not. I do not. In fact I don’t hold anything on the notion of faith since I find faith to be, well quite frankly a silly thing.

I have seen people deceived by a lie, but because they had an emotional experience, they accept it as truth. That's one thing that irritates me about some Christians, a total reliance on faith without reason.
But faith is relied on without reason. Faith is acceptance of truth without regard to reason. You may feel like you have valid reasons for holding your faith but if you really looked at the evidence with an open mind I’m sure that you would soon find out that your faith is just based on a desire to believe or perhaps the deluded notion of reason.

[Choobus]

As for my silly example of being able to jump to the moon. It is not reasonable, yet has not been demonstrated to be true or false. Based on your premise, since it has not been demonstrated, you cannot truly know whether I can do it or not. Therefore, as you say you "must accept it on faith" that I cannot do it. That is faith based on reason.
I do not have to accept it on faith that you can’t jump to the moon. I know that you can’t because it is physically impossible for you to do so. Human muscles lack the capability to jump even a fraction of the distance that it would take for one to jump to the moon. Common knowledge of human anatomy therefore lets anybody know that a human (or any animal for that matter) cannot jump to the moon, even if it has never been demonstrated.

Likewise, I believe you would admit that you cannot definitively demonstrate that God does not exist, so "rational demonstration" is not possible.
I never said that I (or anyone) could, but that doesn’t mean that all notions of god that I have come across or have come up with are irrational and logically inconsistent.

So, based on the evidence you see (or choose to accept), you make a step of "reasonable faith".
That’s why religion and belief in god is based on faith. No one can prove or disapprove a deity’s existence. Therefore it comes down to if one decides to hold notions of god on faith or not. I do not. In fact I don’t hold anything on the notion of faith since I find faith to be, well quite frankly a silly thing.

I have seen people deceived by a lie, but because they had an emotional experience, they accept it as truth. That's one thing that irritates me about some Christians, a total reliance on faith without reason.
But faith is relied on without reason. Faith is acceptance of truth without regard to reason. You may feel like you have valid reasons for holding your faith but if you really looked at the evidence with an open mind I’m sure that you would soon find out that your faith is just based on a desire to believe or perhaps the deluded notion of reason.
by definition faith is belief without proof. Those who seek reason cannot logically embrace religon, and vice versa, hence the fucked up world we live in

[Tenspace]

This sounds good, but I don't completely agree. Faith isn't "conviction and acceptance of a statement as true despite the lack of reason". I may have tremendous faith that I can jump to the moon, however logic shows me that that is not reasonable faith. Take faith in God, is it reasonable up to the point of being unable to absolutely prove it? In my view, yes it is. At that point faith takes over, being reinforced and supported with reason. I believe this is what Thomas means by "reasonable faith". (Thomas, feel free to correct me if I have put words in your mouth incorrectly).
Argh argh argh... faith has more than one meaning, just like "theory", just like "passion", and a whole bunch of other words.

Religious faith is defined just like you stated: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

"Informal" faith: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Don't confuse the two, or intentionally swap them to make a point.

Tenspace

[Messenger]

Prepare for the second coming of Christ

Look http://ltr.netro.ca/ee.html

[Tenspace]

Oh wow, Messenger - I'm convinced! All it takes is a little flash animation, and I believe!

But then again, I believe this guy (http://www.fat-pie.com/salad.htm) is Jesus too! Great Flash!

Tenspace

[Messenger]

good

[abortionman]

faith is bullshit
that's the first thing you learn in college chemistry/bio/philosophy

biochemistry majors should rejoice at their freakish unresting skepticism (that's why there are shitty 4 hour lab classes)

[Coldbourne]

that's the first thing you learn in college chemistry/bio/philosophy
So do you think you are going to pass your classes?

[Rhinoqulous]

In messenger's flash, it seems like Jeebus is going to come back and bomb the fuck out of the planet, and then absorb all the souls of the dead like the Highlander. There Can Be Only One, JESUS!!!

And Salad Fingers, I shall do as thou command. I shall find you rusty spoons for you to stroke with your marvelous salad fingers. Seriously, that flash was great, like a nightmare enema.

Rhinoq

[Tenspace]

And Salad Fingers, I shall do as thou command. I shall find you rusty spoons for you to stroke with your marvelous salad fingers. Seriously, that flash was great, like a nightmare enema.

Rhinoq
Check out the whole series. They get stranger and stranger.

Ten

[Messenger]

Alot of Chemists and philosophers think God is not real because their all like, ohh all there is is atoms that bunch up together and make stuff, no shit, God had to make something that could be explained to unbelievers of how life exists. He couldn't just make a whole world without some sort of reasoning for man to believe or not to believe in Him. It would be to easy to get to heaven. When you think about the big bang theory, what the hell, time, matter and everything did not exist. The big bang probably did happen but what caused it? Hmmmmmmm............... You have to be totally egocentric to not believe it was God.

[HeWhoAsks]

The quotes below (from post # 73) are great examples of very confused thinking.

Alot of Chemists and philosophers think God is not real because their all like, ohh all there is is atoms that bunch up together and make stuff. . . .
Yes, those foolish scientists actually deal with reality and evidence and logic (we can now see atoms, test their reality, etc.). How silly is that?!

God had to make something that could be explained to unbelievers of how life exists.
This is assuming what is in question. Nice way to end discussion, but not very logical.

He couldn't just make a whole world without some sort of reasoning for man to believe or not to believe in Him. It would be to easy to get to heaven.
OK, let me get this straight. You're saying that God created the universe with structure and reason behind it so that it would be more difficult for people to decide whether to believe in him or not so it wouldn't be too easy to get into heaven?! Where do you get this stuff?!

1. Why should getting into heaven not be easy?! Only a fiend would withhold the joys of heaven (and at the same time inflict infinite torture on those who fail the test).

2. The Christian sect of Universalism believes that *everyone* goes to heaven, so belief in the Christian god doesn't require that heaven be difficult to get into.

3. If the universe shows structure and laws of science, that is no proof that God did it.

You have to be totally egocentric to not believe it was God.
Actually, just the opposite. You'd have to be totally egocentric to believe that people were created in god's image, like it says in the bible, that the creator of the universe is somehow concerned with these puny creatures on some insignificant planet circling some average star in an obscure corner of this one galaxy in a corner of the universe. Now, that's egocentric!

[Messenger]

God is not just going to hand Heaven over to everyone, he wants you to believe in him without any actual hard evidence that he is real. Blessed are those who don't see and believe He says. You need to earn the right to get to Heaven.

Those very atoms the scientists are looking at are creations from God so that man has a way of looking at life without having to believe, Its a diversion, to test ones faith. God knew man's knowledge would increase and they would discover new things and travel to the ends of the Earth, that is why God created a system of laws as gravity, atoms, matter, so that man may have some way to explore and learn how our world works.

[baric]

God is not just going to hand Heaven over to everyone, he wants you to believe in him without any actual hard evidence that he is real. Blessed are those who don't see and believe He says. You need to earn the right to get to Heaven.
So you are saying that believing without evidence is how you earn eternal life?

It sounds more to me like you are simply rationalizing your own intellectual sloth. Lurnin is Hard!

I could just as easily postulate a god who hides himself specifically to reward those who think rationally and come to the conclusion that there is no god. At least that god would have a sense of humor AND not surround himself with a bunch of know-nothings.

[Messenger]

If you believe and follow in the footsteps of Christ, you will be written in the book of life. If you live an evil life your name will be erased from the book of life, and you will be in eternal suffering. For those who are written in the book of life will die no more, Just as Jesus, who was the first to die no more.

[schemanista]

If you believe and follow in the footsteps of Christ, you will be written in the book of life. If you live an evil life your name will be erased from the book of life, and you will be in eternal suffering. For those who are written in the book of life will die no more, Just as Jesus, who was the first to die no more.
Thanks for playing, but your answer had to be in the form of a question.

Next.

[Messenger]

schemanista wrote:
Thanks for playing, but your answer had to be in the form of a question.

Next.
To You this might be a game, but it is not.

[Lucretius]

A nice double standard is that the Big Bang requires causation (even though the laws of physics break down at it's root and claiming causation is an untenable position) but God does not.

HeWhoAsks makes an excellent point that it is you theists who are egocentric because you actually think a deity who made a universe as infinite as this one actually has conversations with you and even listens to what you say.

[Lucretius]

If you believe and follow in the footsteps of Christ, you will be written in the book of life. If you live an evil life your name will be erased from the book of life, and you will be in eternal suffering. For those who are written in the book of life will die no more, Just as Jesus, who was the first to die no more.
Jesus never existed, sorry.

[Tenspace]

Those very atoms the scientists are looking at are creations from God so that man has a way of looking at life without having to believe, Its a diversion, to test ones faith. God knew man's knowledge would increase and they would discover new things and travel to the ends of the Earth, that is why God created a system of laws as gravity, atoms, matter, so that man may have some way to explore and learn how our world works.
And this was divined to you how? Since the ancients had no clue about atoms and chemistry (excepting Democritus and a few others), and since what you state is not found in the Bible (which I understand as to be the only source of information describing the Christian God that's not interpretation), I have to ask you how you know this? Did you make it up? Did your pastor preach this in a sermon? What gives you the ability to accurately surmise what was on God's mind?

Tenspace

[schemanista]

To You this might be a game, but it is not.
If it is a game to me then it is.

And 'what is the sound of one hand clapping"?

And "we drive on a parkway but park on a driveway"

Discuss.

[Lundie]

To You this might be a game, but it is not.
If it is a game to me then it is.

And 'what is the sound of one hand clapping"?

And "we drive on a parkway but park on a driveway"

Discuss.
If I may add to the list:

1. Does a deer shit in the woods?

2. Does a falling tree make a sound if there's no one nearby to hear it?

3. Was the Pope a nazi? If so why does he say he would not even allow conversions into the Roman Catholic church, as, so they say, once a RATzinger always a RATzinger? Elaborate.

4. Why is it called cargo when they send it by ship and shipment when they send it by land?

5. Why am I wasting my time writing silly posts when I could, for instance, have passionate sex with complete strangers? Discuss.

[Messenger]

Lucretius wrote:
Jesus never existed, sorry.
For it will be Jesus who will be saying sorry to you when you pled with him to enter The Kingdom of GOD.
Bóg ma litość na waszym *souls*


Tenspace
When you understand God you begin to see how everything is so simple, the way life works, It all revolves around God. We are created in his image, he lives with us all, he knows all. He is the A and the Z, the beginning and the end of all things.

[Lucretius]

Lucretius wrote:
Jesus never existed, sorry.
For it will be Jesus who will be saying sorry to you when you pled with him to enter The Kingdom of GOD.
Bóg ma lito?? na waszym *souls*
Jesus the humble guy wants me to plead for him to let me into heaven? Doesn't sound omnibenevolent to me. Sounds like he has some sort of superiority complex. In fact — he sounds like an asshole. Too bad he never existed.

[Tenspace]

Tenspace
When you understand God you begin to see how everything is so simple, the way life works, It all revolves around God. We are created in his image, he lives with us all, he knows all. He is the A and the Z, the beginning and the end of all things.
That's nice, but it doesn't answer my question.

Guess I'll have to include you in the "Typical Theist" category. You assume that atheists were never religious. You assume wrongly.

Ten

[Lundie]

Lucretius wrote:
Jesus never existed, sorry.
For it will be Jesus who will be saying sorry to you when you pled with him to enter The Kingdom of GOD.
Bóg ma litość na waszym *souls*


Tenspace
When you understand God you begin to see how everything is so simple, the way life works, It all revolves around God. We are created in his image, he lives with us all, he knows all. He is the A and the Z, the beginning and the end of all things.
He is the A,
the Z,
He is the Dee ba dOo ba Dee.

Since we're already speaking in 'tongues' here I might as well:

Apa lanciau engkau cakap ni hah? Kau ingat hanya setakat mengulangi perkataan-perkataan setan yang dikandungi kitab Kristian engkau kita akan mengakui bahawa hujah-hujah engkau semuanya sah? Kita ni kan golongan Atheist! Bagi kita ni kitab engkau hanyalah kerja orang yang TIDAK mengahami bahawa kejadian fenomena-fenomena macam hujan, ribut, taufan semuanya hanya proses alam semulajadi dan bukan disebabkan oleh sebarang Tuhan terutamanya Tuhan kerpercayaan karut Kristian! Kalau engkau betul-betul hendak berdebat dengan kita mengenai kewujudan Tuhan Kristian dalam forum ini cubalah guna taakulan berdasarkan bukti saintifik dan logik dan bukannya hanya berdasarkan fikiran engkau yang kurang waras!

Holy Mackerel! Does that make me a prophet? Or is rolling around on the floor and having visions a necessary part of the job description?

[Coldbourne]

Bóg ma litość na waszym *souls*
Caution:
The views and arguments presented by this
individual do not represent those of all theists. Reader discretion is advised.

Precaución:
Las opiniónes y las discusiones presentaron por este individuo no representan los de todos los theists. Se aconseja la discreción del lector.

Vorsicht:
Die Ansichten und die Argumente stellten sich durch diese Einzelperson darstellen nicht die aller theists dar. Leserdiskretion wird geraten.

Attention :
Les vues et les arguments ont présenté par cet individu ne représentent pas ceux de tous les theists. La discrétion de lecteur est conseillée.

注意:
意見および議論はこの個人によって表さないすべてのtheists のそれらを示した。読者の思慮分別は助言される。

Предосторежение:
Взгляды и аргументы представили этим индивидуалом не представляют то из всех theists. Усмотрение читателя о.

[Lundie]

Another prophet?!??! Shit, the Second Coming is here alReAdY?

Run! Hide! Lose your virginity! The LORD is coming! oOOOooOooo scary......

[bornatheist]

Probably due their need to be flagellated in order to get off. Isn't that what christians do?;)

[GodlessHeathen]

I can't remember who it was, but somebody once said that faith untested is faith unfounded. Maybe they're looking to test their faith and make it stronger.

And, to be honest, I think I respect the theists that come here and have intelligent discussions more than I respect theists who hang out in an all-theist forum that doesn't allow any challenge or discussion of religion.

[envision]

I am theist that comes here. I havn't posted much but I read alot. I suppose I mainly come to learn and understand the opposing viewpoint. I think its kinda hard to truly believe something if you don't know what else there is to believe. So I mainly come to read and learn. I'll debate occasionly but I'm mostly content with reading for now.

[calpurnpiso]

Envision.

Welcome, remember knowledge will set you free and the more knowledge you get the less others can lie and deceive you!..:)

[freethought]

I've spent a number of years on IRC, often debating superstitious people of many stripes. It has substantially expanded my understanding of the problem our society is continuing to have with reguard to violence, sadism, bigotry, torture and other kinds of hardships.
(I bet at least some of the superstitious reading this are already forming an over generalization as a counter-argument, while foaming at the mouth. No, not all suffering is caused by acceptance and propagation of irrational beliefs, and consequently by acting out on them; but a lot of it is).

I think there are many reasons for the infiltration of atheist mediums by the irrational. Some of the more common ones are insecurity, selfish desire to appease the skybeast at the expense of mental health of others, the irrational drive to attempt to remove opposing view points that has to do with lack of understanding of logical fallacy called "ad populum" (majority believe x created me from ribs, therefore it's true) and plain old altruistic desire to help the fellow humans avoid agonizing torture (authenticity of which I highly doubt).

The most annoying reason I've encountered, which I hypothesize about, having never had the opportunity of seeing it be admitted, was the desire to derail intelligent discourse in order to prevent proto-reasonable theists from progressing towards rationality.

How's that for my first post? =)

-- freethought

Society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a loaded .45

[ocmpoma]

Hmmm... are you sure it isn't

"Society without religion is like a loaded .45 without a crazed psycopath"?

Welcome to the forum. Forums? Fora?
Is flora just the plural of florum?

[freethought]

Hmmm... are you sure it isn't

"Society without religion is like a loaded .45 without a crazed psycopath"?
From my observations, society is pernicious enough on it's own, without any help from superstitious beliefs, let alone ones that are chock full of instructions to commit violence, etc.

For instance, greed by itself does a lot of harm, no help from the mythological skybeast needed.

I think we can do a lot towards improving society, with the help of science.

[Another brick in the wall]

How about this: Everyone makes mistakes, but to really fuck things up, you need religion.

[freethought]

I like that one too, but less than I like the one I'm using for a tag.

I try to cause people to think about society without religion every chance i get.

(Besides, I don't want to plagerise Carlin... My quote is anonymous, I think)
=)

[ghoulslime]

Another prophet?!??! Shit, the Second Coming is here alReAdY?

Run! Hide! Lose your virginity! The LORD is coming! oOOOooOooo scary......
If the lord is coming, it will take a while for him to wipe his dick off and get zipped back up. We still have time.

[ghoulslime]

Welcome to the forum. Forums? Fora?
Is flora just the plural of florum?
A flora isa whata you stand on a, you stupida bastard!

[ocmpoma]

This morning I shot ghoulslime in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas, I have no idea.

[miata]

Hi.I'm new to this board.Just wondered why theists felt the need to post here.Is it out of an overwhelming desire to 'save" us Aethists or what?Believe me I consider myself "saved" already because I have rejected religion.

Why can't you just leave us to our fate.After all we only have ourselves to blame.What irritates to me is that most of your discourse is not in the true and honest spirit of intellectual exchange.Rather, it always descends into some primitive diatribe.You actually give us more reason to remain Aethist by posting and continually exposing yourselves, reminding some of us of why we are not religious.
We give them attention. Jesus would not have died if no one was looking, he was a rock star.. They need to suffer to feel real and deal with guilt. It's all about marketing their product of Jesus inc. He always did the healing thing in crowded areas. If there was a god he would send us an email for them. If he is almighty or even real, he does not need an ad agency, our love or groupies.

Their god is a murdering psychopath and they need us to love him to make them feel good. Atheist are threats to their goal of total escape from reality. We live in the real world they live Jesusville. They want to convert us so they can feel like they are not considered stupid to the entire human race.

It's a cheap high and it's not only legal it's tax free.

Miata

[ChiefOfAss]

From my observations, society is pernicious enough on it's own, without any help from superstitious beliefs, let alone ones that are chock full of instructions to commit violence, etc
For instance, greed by itself does a lot of harm, no help from the mythological skybeast needed.
Greed by itself has no structure. You gotta have the skybeast to terrorize that greedy mob into a disiplined legion with which to extend your political will.

Er... that's what was needed until about 250 years ago... now all you need is the G.I. bill.

Unless you're Muslim. Then, you need the skybeast to rest you from the shackles that prevent your proud, magnificent culture from assuming its rightful place in the world. Er... whatever the blind sheik abdullah oblongata says.

[miata]

Christians come here to share their love with us. I like them as they remind me of how blind I was and I think some are looking for our help to let go of the bondage of religion and I hope we can help some see the light of day. They need us more than we need them or they would not come here as I never go to their site as I am not seeking the truth and they are. Let's make them feel welcome and let them know that we are kind not out of fear of HELL but because we are sane and happy human beings who need no cult to force us into a mold. We are so blessed.

Miata