quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: I answered this above. In essence, all the others are in a grave that can be pointed to. The grave couldn't hold Jesus. He showed up a few days later and hung around for several weeks. Mohammed couldn't do that. Neither could Buddha....

Yup, that's what you believe alright. More power to you as they say.

WOW! My eyes or full & my head aches! What a great thread as no one is slamming anyone (hard anyway) and many are writing their inner feeling/beliefs.

What is time? Whose time is it? Chronos is mans time made by man & it is the time of physics. Simply put it is physical time or ordinary time. Whereas kairos is metaphysical time. The resulting two kinds of time, chronos in space-time and kairos outside it, provide a smooth bridge from physics to metaphysics and the philosophy of religion. Those who believe in God generally understand the days God created the earth in were on Gods time kairos not chromos. We can’t get our hands or minds around the length of Gods day.

I was raised in a Christian home. I was rebellious for many years. I now refer to those years as my “doubting Thomas years.” During this time I also had many unanswered questions about faith as most young folks do as they approach young adulthood. Whenever I had the opportunity to learn about other religions I did. If it was through a co-worker in conversation or an elective college class I tried to understand the different faiths of people. Although I’m by no means a scholar on any of the world’s religions including mine (Christian) I’m still a living breathing human being so therefore I’m still learning. Anyway here is my take on the age old question of “What is the meaning of Life” according to Ray.

The more science (especially archeology) discovers the more it supports the New & Old Testaments as well as the books in the Apocrypha. This makes me think that the Jewish and Christians may be on to something.

If it wasn’t for women, the early Christian church would not have made it out of infancy. So I find it odd how many Christian denominations still treat our mothers, wife’s, & sisters as second class citizens. This was mans choice to do this it is not a doctrine of the bible (Gods word for believers).

It is so obvious that the major Christian holidays were placed on or near significant pagan dates to encourage conversion to Christianity. It’s also obvious that many abuses of power existed in the early church to gain control over populations or people. Again this was mans choice to do this it is not a doctrine of the bible (Gods word).

Many Christians killed in the name of Christianity to force conversion to Christianity. Mans choice not doctrine of the bible (Gods word). I like the 10 commandments if we all followed them the world would be a far better off place.

This could become my personal list of Pros & Cons of Christianity as I see so I will wrap it up here. I see all of the major religions having a Pro’s & Con’s lists. So why do I always comeback to Christianity? Well it was and is a lifelong journey. For me it’s the Grace thing from a Loving forgiving God.

I believe in a supreme being God. I believe that all religions who believe in one God believe in the same God. I believe that although God knows us by name before we were born & knows when we will die he did not predestine each of our lives. He knows this because he knows all. I believe God is not a micro manager again not predestining our life’s he gave us free will. With this free will we make choices that affect our lives’ choices that make us who we are and who we become.

As I approach the end of my physical life (terminal cancer with a few years at most to live) I’m comfortable with my life and my diagnosis. I believe God had nothing to do with me getting cancer. We have a biological body and things happen to it over time. Why bad things happen to good people can be explained because of our biological body & the poor choices we make with our free will. I also believe that with a good live comes a good death. I’ve had a very good life.

Bottom line for me: I always come back to Christ as my personal savior. As I said when I started this note, er a letter, well maybe dissertation, what I’ve found to be the meaning of life. We (Christians) are to be the living Church the living hands and feet of Christ. WOW - We Christians (a lot of us & for the most part) are really doing a bad job at this! We have a lot of work to do!

------------------
1986 Red s/e 2m6 5-sp, & 2006 Red Solstice 5-sp

quote Originally posted by Renegade blob: Frontal lobe: You're completely right that I have a bias, nothing that can be said on here is going to change my views. I think the only way I'll ever believe in God is if He tells me to himself. But I didn't like the picture in my head of all religions people just being uneducated in science, and over-educated in their religion. Yes, that is a very cruel way of putting it, but that's why I went looking for answers several years ago, and my perception hasn't really changed until today.

You don't have to think you are being cruel to state what your observations of your life have been. You are expressing that your personal experience with religious people is that they haven't had much education in science. You would rightly conclude that it would be hard to respect the beliefs of those people, because what is it based on.

People are going to toss the word "faith" around. Well, what most people are referring to as faith is really BLIND faith that has no foundation. I have no respect for that. (don't get me wrong. I respect their right to have their belief, and won't belittle or ridicule them. But I don't respect that kind of 'faith'.)

A 100% eye witness account like you are asking for (...the only way I'll ever believe in God is if He tells me to himself.) doesn't REQUIRE faith. You saw it and experienced it for yourself. No faith required.

Faith needs to have a foundation. That is why I tried to explain it as a circumstantial case. You aren't going to get the eye witness account. But there IS evidence available. You are expecting religious people to at least EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE that is available. Scientific record. Historical record. And THEN come to a reasoned conclusion. THAT is what faith is. You don't have ALL the evidence, but you have examined the evidence you have, and BASED ON THAT, by faith you extrapolate your beliefs FROM that foundation.


So far in life, you have looked at the evidence and decided that the preponderance of evidence says that evolutionary science can explain the world you live in, and so although you have no eye witness account of evolution, big bang, etc., by FAITH, based on that foundation, accept it as true and have belief in it.

I would just IN KINDNESS have you consider one thing. Your conclusion has been that MOST people that are religious are UNDER educated in science and OVER educated in their religion, and that makes you question the validity (not the right to, you have been very respectful) of their decision. I would humbly submit (not accusing, but just going by how it seems) that YOU are highly educated in science and UNDER educated in religion.

But I don't fault you at that at all. Truth is, in my experience, MOST people are UNDER educated in science AND UNDER educated in their own religion, too. Certainly in life you must be experiencing the same thing.


Unfortunately for you, even if you WERE interested in at least giving religion SOMEwhat of an examination, there are SO many religions, with SUBSTANTIALLY different views, it would be very hard for you to examine them all.

That is why I tried to NOT answer you with religion per se, but with one taste of a short section of the Bible to examine (just Daniel 8 and 9), and compare it with what secular history says about the same time period. There are lots of examples like that, but as someone else already mentioned, the posts get very long on an involved, complicated topic like this.

P.S. Irrelevant to the topic, but I was BORN in Madison. Parents were from Cross Plaines. Grew up in northern Illinois, though, but back to Milwaukee area to live for the past 25 years.

I never discount the Bible (what ever current version). From it's canonization by the Pagan Emperor Constantine in 325 AD from the 1st Council of Nicaea till today.

Every story has some relevance, and yes there are plenty of stories from the past to the present, in the Bible to other manuscripts that reference some historical event that it deemed to be an actual recorded fact. The Bible isn't the only book that references this nor does it include every historical gospel that references Jesus or Christianity.

Even the Canonical gospels of the New Testament paints a different picture of Jesus of Nazareth even with referencing the same event, they tell different versions (some people call this contradictions). Even Biblical Scholars acknowledge it, but they were Canonized because they were deemed the oldest of the gospels (although not eye witness accounts) they figured that putting them together they can at least get somewhat of a story behind the Jew Preacher that will become a God.

Christianity as a full fledged religion didn't emerge until hundreds of years after Jesus was executed for his crimes. Jesus was a part of the Essene Jewish Cult, which was an apocalyptic version of Judaism that was fighting the Rabbinic Jews during the Roman Judea era. You can say it's like the Muslims and their Sunni and Shia trifles that exist still today.

Jesus, Paul and all those who preached the apocalyptic version of Judaism always contended that "they" were the "real jews" and all others were not. They thought themselves as Jews and even Jesus did. Evidence gathered from Josephus, scholars in the field, archaeology and many other sources all basically conclude that even Jesus of Nazareth "NEVER" thought himself as the son of God, a messiah or anything else. Only a Essene preacher.

How Christianity caught on so fast and became widespread is that the Essene Jews were travelers and so their message spread all over the Roman-Greeko world. And their religion appealed to Gentiles because you didn't have all the restrictions, rituals and sacrifices that were usually expected if you wanted to become part of the Rabbinic Jew faith (the dominate one during this period). No need to sacrifice animals, cut your foreskin off and etc. It was an easy cult to join.

Although Essene Judaism (later Christianity) never really caught on in the Middle East or in Judea, it did manage to eventually grow a foothold in Rome (Italy) and spread from there to Spain than France and later rest of Europe.

Christianity basically sort of developed as a European Jewish religion and since Europe became so dominate just after the Dark Ages it started taking roots through their Colonial conquest, although it never really gained much in Asia.

Like I said before. It's fine if people say that Jesus is their Savior and they love and worship him as a God. And it's cute that Christians tend to try to explain that the Bible is some sort of magic book from God that explains everything and they say things like "1-day for God is like a million human years". That's all said and good.

But the reason I do not put any ounce of faith into religion is because I do know a whole hell of a lot about it, much more than 99% of the people who proclaim it as their faith and religion. I will admit that I know much more about the history of Christianity than other religions, so I can't debate the points against Buddhism or Islam as well as I can with Christianity.

Christianity is nothing more than another religion that had its heyday and is on a steep decline towards its eventual fate, and that is, just another old religion that hardly anybody will put any credence to other than historical reference. Every religion has a life cycle, although it does have very long life cycles, but like religions before Christianity, it will disappear into obscurity and be replaced by another.

I will probably be dead with this takes place, but I predict that in the next hundred or so years from now, Worshiping some Alien god will become mainstream in parts of the world and Roswell, New Mexico will become one of the major religious and spiritual sites.

(IF YOU DID NOT READ ABOVE....BELOW IS THE SHORT & SWEET)

I don't believe in religion or Christianity because I know about the history of how it started, developed and how it spread. If you did too, you would also cease to believe in it.

Thanks!

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 07-08-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Yup, that's what you believe alright. More power to you as they say.

I guess that you don't believe in the Revolutionary War, the Crusades, or anything else in which all the witnesses are dead, either.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Jesus, Paul and all those who preached the apocalyptic version of Judaism always contended that "they" were the "real jews" and all others were not. They thought themselves as Jews and even Jesus did. Evidence gathered from Josephus, scholars in the field, archaeology and many other sources all basically conclude that even Jesus of Nazareth "NEVER" thought himself as the son of God, a messiah or anything else. Only a Essene preacher.

This and the statements before it are factually incorrect. Matthew, Mark and John were eye witness writers of the Gospels. Luke, a doctor, personally interviewed eye witnesses, reporting the findings in his gospel and detailing the travels of Paul and the other Apostles in Acts. Their books were canonized because they were accurate and did not include humanly inserted heretical teachings. They were the earliest (as well as being accurate) because they were first hand accounts.

John 8:58: "I tell you the truth; before Abraham was, I AM"

John 10:30: "I and My Father are One."

John 14:6: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. None comes to the Father except by Me."

Three examples from one of the books, the one that we are currently studying.

quote Christianity as a full fledged religion didn't emerge until hundreds of years after Jesus was executed for his crimes

From a short time after the crucifixion;

Acts 11:25-26: Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught a significant number of people. Now it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.

Now, it may be that what you call the "church," a set of buildings with a hierarchical governing structure appeared, didn't happen until some time after, the fact is that faith in Christ's finished work on the cross and His resurrection had been a vital, growing movement since Pentecost.

Thanks for the NPR look at Christianity. I prefer more balanced reportage. So, when will Judiaism die? It's even older, by about 2000 years, than Christianity.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Parts of the Bible can't be taken literally. "A day is like 1000 years..." That's a similie. It can't be literally accurate. "God created the heavens and the earth." Ok - that can be taken literally and still agree with science. It doesn't mention "HOW" it was done. Even frontal lobe's comment about science claiming to have created life from elements doesn't disprove God, and can even support it. We created the experiment, set the conditions and allowed it to happen. There was an intelligence from outside the system creating the conditions that allowed life to spontaneously happen. The Bible isn't a scientific journal. It's written as stories. If you tell someone you got an emergency phone call and took off in a flash, that doesn't mean you literally disappeared in a flash of light. Some things in the Bible are very specific. The description of how the Ark of the Covenant was to be built is very precise. Accounts of generations before the books were written are more vague. To us, the lab experiment is science. To the "life" created within it, we could be considered nothing other than a god, our existence is so far beyond it's comprehension. If that life created in the lab grew and evolved, became sentient and developed scientific intelligence over the ages it might one day understand the chemical reaction that started it's existence in that lab. Does that mean no one was there to perform the experiment?

actually - physics does allow for warping of time. and, if God can spark off the Big Bang - he can most certainly warp time/space.
and, along that aspect: time is relative to the observer. at very VERY high speeds (faster than a Fiero ), a day of the high speed traveller will actually equal 1000 years of everyone else.

and - for the floods showing up in many cultures: because floods actually DO show up in many cultures. we have flooding in the US right now. Tsunami in Japan earlier this year. they happen all the time, and are massive in scale & impact, and, with little understanding of causes - they were assumed to be works of God. and WAY beyond the ability of man to contain (even today, it seems)

Dr. Lane Craig poses 5 compelling arguments as to why it's more reasonable to believe in God than it is to not believe in God. This isn't what you're asking, but I think you'll enjoy the read. I've agreed with everything Patrick's Dad and 2.5 have said so I'd just be repeating them if I directly answered your questions.


Dr. Lane Craig's 5 Reasons God Exists
-------------------------------------

1. The Origin of the Universe.

Have you ever asked yourself where the universe came from? Why anything at all exists instead of just nothing? Typically atheists have said that the universe is just eternal, and that’s all. But is that a plausible position? If the universe never had a beginning, then that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality.

David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. ... The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”

But that entails that since past events are not just ideas but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore the series of past events cannot go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

This conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. The astrophysical evidence indicates that the universe began to exist in a great explosion called the Big Bang about fifteen billion years ago. Most people do not understand that physical space and time were created in that event, as well as all the matter and energy in the universe. Therefore, as the Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of the universe out of nothing. This is because as one goes back in time one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle’s words, the universe was “shrunk down to nothing at all.”

Thus what the Big Bang model requires is that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing. Now this tends to be very awkward for the atheist. For as Anthony Kenny of Oxford University urges, “A proponent of the [Big Bang] theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that ... the universe came from nothing and by nothing.”

But surely that doesn’t make sense. Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause, which brought the universe into being.

We may summarize our argument thus far as follows:
• The universe began to exist.
• Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
• Therefore the universe has a cause.

Now from the very nature of the case, as the cause of space and time, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being of unimaginable power, which created the universe. Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause where an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. Once the sufficient conditions are present, the effect must be present as well. The only way that the cause could be timeless and the effect begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. And thus we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

2. The complex order in the universe.

During the last thirty years, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions simply given in the Big Bang itself. We now know that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life-permitting universe like ours.

How much more probable? The answer is that the chances that the universe should be lifepermitting are so infinitesimal as to be literally incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a 100 thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed into a hot fireball.

P.C.W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is 1 followed by a thousand billion billion zeros - at least! There are around 50 such quantities and constants present in the Big Bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. So improbability is added to improbability to improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do. The one-time agnostic physicist Paul Davies comments: “Through my scientific work I’ve come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I can not accept it merely as a brute fact.”

Similarly Fred Hoyle declares: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics.” And Robert Jastrow, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, has called this the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science.

So once again, the view that theist has always held, that there is an intelligent designer of the universe, seems to make much more sense than the atheistic interpretation that the universe, when it popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing, just happened to be, by chance, fine-tuned to an incomprehensible precision for the existence of intelligent life.

We can summarize this second argument as follows:
• The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe is due to either law, chance or design.
• It is not due to law or chance.
• Therefore, it is due to design.

3. Objective Moral Values in the World.

If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, Michael Ruse, a Canadian philosopher of science explains:

Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth .... Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, [ethics] is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves, ... Nevertheless, ... such reference is truly without foundation, Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any deeper meaning is illusory ....

Friedrich Nietzsche, the great atheist of the last century who proclaimed the death of God, understood that the death of God meant the destruction of all meaning and value in life. I think that Friedrich Nietzsche was right.

But we’ve got to be very careful here. The question here is not: Must we believe in God in order to live a moral life? I’m not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God? I certainly think that we can. Rather the question is: If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?

Like Ruse, I just don’t see any reason to think that in the absence of God the morality evolved by Homo sapiens is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what’s so special about human beings? They’re just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth, lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe, and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.On the atheistic view, some action, say rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human development has become taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really morally wrong. On the atheistic view, there’s nothing really wrong with your raping someone. And thus without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.

But the problem is that objective values do exist, and deep down I think we all know it. There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. Actions like rape, cruelty, torture, and child-abuse aren’t just socially unacceptable behavior. These are moral abominations. Some things are really wrong. Similarly, love, equality and generosity are really good.

Thus we can summarize this third consideration as follows:
• If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
• Objective values do exist.
• Therefore, God exists.

4. The Historical Facts concerning the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus.

The historical person Jesus of Nazareth was a remarkable individual. New Testament critics have reached something of a consensus that the historical Jesus came on the scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority, the authority to stand and speak in God’s place. He claimed that in himself the Kingdom of God had come, and as visible demonstrations of this fact he carried out a ministry of miracle working and exorcisms.

But the supreme confirmation of his claim was his resurrection from the dead. If Jesus really did rise from the dead, then it would seem that we have a divine miracle on our hands and thus evidence for the existence of God.

Now most people would probably think that the resurrection of Jesus is something you either just believe in by faith or not. But in fact there are actually three established facts recognized by the majority of New Testament historians today, which I believe are best explained by the resurrection of Jesus.

Fact #1: On the Sunday following his crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist in the resurrection, “By far, most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb.”
Fact #2: On separate occasions different individuals and groups of people saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death. Even the skeptical German New Testament critic Gert Lüdeman admits: “It may be taken as historically certain that ... the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death, in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” These appearances were witnessed not only by believers, but also by unbelievers, skeptics, and even enemies.
Fact #3: The original disciples suddenly came to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. You see, Jews had no belief in a dying, much less a rising, Messiah. And Jewish beliefs about the after-life precluded anyone’s rising from the dead before the end of the world.

Nevertheless, the original disciples came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they where willing to go to their deaths for that belief. Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar from Emory University, comments: “Some sort of powerful transformative experience is required in order to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.”

N.T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes: “That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.”

Attempts to explain away these three great facts, like “The disciples stole the body” or “Jesus wasn’t really dead,” have been universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. The simple fact is that there just is no plausible, naturalistic explanation of these three facts. Therefore it seems to me that the Christian is amply justified in believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be. But that entails that God exists.

5. The Immediate Experience of God.

This isn’t really an argument for God’s existence; rather it’s the claim that you can know that God exists wholly apart from arguments simply by immediately experiencing Him. This was the way that people in the Bible knew God, as Professor John Hick explains: “God was known to them as a dynamic will interacting with their own wills, a sheer given reality, as inescapably to be reckoned with as destructive storm and life-giving sunshine. ... To them God was not ... an idea adopted by the mind, but the experiential reality which gave significance to their lives.”

Now if this is so, there’s a danger that arguments for the existence of God could actually distract one’s attention from God Himself. If you’re sincerely seeking God, then, I believe that God will make His existence evident to you. The Bible promises, “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.” We mustn’t so concentrate on the external proofs that we fail to hear the inner voice of God speaking to our own hearts. For those who listen, God becomes an immediate reality in their lives.

In conclusion, then, we have yet to see any arguments to show that God does not exist, and we have seen five reasons to think that God does exist. Together these reasons constitute, I believe, a powerful cumulative case for the existence of God. Unless and until we are given better arguments for atheism, I think that, we can agree that theism is the more plausible world-view.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: Not a metaphorically question. What is your answer?

A cloud might weigh a lot, but so does air. Example from internet: "Consider a hypothetical but typical small cloud at an altitude of 10,000 feet, comprising one cubic kilometer and having a liquid water content of 1.0 gram per cubic meter. The total mass of the cloud particles is about 1 million kilograms, which is roughly equivalent to the weight of 500 automobiles. But the total mass of the air in that same cubic kilometer is about 1 billion kilograms--1,000 times heavier than the liquid!"

As to the religion stuff...

Wow, this is a lot of information, and it's awesome. I'm learning more about religion than I ever have. I really did think that the bible said something like "everything that is always was and always will be that way", and didn't allow for fossils, or any kind of change. To put it simply, what I knew about the bible and Christianity was anything that might cause skepticism. I've always heard from atheists and opponents of the bible, so this is awesome. Thanks you all sooo much! However, I do have some input.

@Formula88: I think what tbone42 is talking about is the point in history where the process of science changed. As astronomy as an example (because I know it) when Galileo (1600ish) first started using his telescope to make observations. Before him, the heavens were perfect, the moon a perfect sphere and the stars on a bigger sphere revolving around the earth. When Galileo discovered mountains on the moon he was thrown out of the church. Once observations and specifically experiments became the norm, science really took off.

@frontal lobe: Yes to everything you have said. I would totally agree that a lot of people (especially my college folk peers) don't know much science or religion. I've met plenty of people in the "I'm a good Christian, but I don't agree with the bible" category. I'm sure you know the kind. The kind that just don't care where they come from.

Here's some food for thought for those who care. A couple days ago I would have used this as a reason to be an atheist: Something like " I don't like the idea of a God who needs to be praised daily". I'm not sure where I heard that, but I remember agreeing with it at the time. Now I realize that that thought is an argument against organized religion, not against a God or Gods. It's surprising to see the differences of agnostic and atheist come out in this thread.

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: From a short time after the crucifixion; Acts 11:25-26: Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught a significant number of people. Now it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians. Now, it may be that what you call the "church," a set of buildings with a hierarchical governing structure appeared, didn't happen until some time after, the fact is that faith in Christ's finished work on the cross and His resurrection had been a vital, growing movement since Pentecost. Thanks for the NPR look at Christianity. I prefer more balanced reportage. So, when will Judiaism die? It's even older, by about 2000 years, than Christianity.

Sigh! People who never look outside the sources of the Bible is always troubling, but I understand that no other bodies of written works matter except for the Bible (for what ever version you pick)

On the Book of John:

Raymond E. Brown did pioneering work to trace the development of the tradition from which the gospel arose.[4] The discourses seem to be concerned with the actual issues of the church-and-synagogue debate at the time when the Gospel was written[5] c. AD 90. It is notable that, in the gospel, the community still appears to define itself primarily against Judaism, rather than as part of a wider Christian church.[6] Though Christianity started as a movement within Judaism, gradually Christians and Jews became bitterly opposed.

The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[24] summarised by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[25]

An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90 AD.[26]

In view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.[27] The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form, renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth,

the text of the gospel is partially out of order; for instance, chapter 6 should follow chapter 4:[31]

4:53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.
4:54 This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee.
6:1 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

Chapter 5 deals with a visit to Jerusalem, and chapter 7 opens with Jesus again in Galilee since "he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him" — a consequence of the incident in Jerusalem described in chapter 5. There are more proposed rearrangements.


Yeah! I know, I'm just possessed by demons and doing the devils work. And there isn't any way a person who has been devotedly religious and religiously indoctrinated to ever see the real truth behind their religious smoke screen. It's like convincing a leftist to be a conservative.

People choose their sides, dig in deep and hold their ground.

I saw it early in my life that religion and Jesus was a farce, even though I was brought up in a very religious home, so I was able to stop it from becoming an unshakable indoctrination that would have probably carried with me for the rest of my life like all the other religious people. I feel sorry for those who are mind trapped into religion, but so long as that person is harmless to others, it actually doesn't matter.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Sigh! People who never look outside the sources of the Bible is always troubling, but I understand that no other bodies of written works matter except for the Bible (for what ever version you pick) ... I saw it early in my life that religion and Jesus was a farce, even though I was brought up in a very religious home, so I was able to stop it from becoming an unshakable indoctrination that would have probably carried with me for the rest of my life like all the other religious people. I feel sorry for those who are mind trapped into religion, but so long as that person is harmless to others, it actually doesn't matter.

I was in the same boat but I do remember I always had a skeptical view of it. It was hard to shake that off and just fall in line. I had to put up or shut up and I did. But I also realized over time that people stick with it despite the overwhelming evidence that the OT/NT is not true at any paranormal/supernatural level for one single reason - they want to. No amount of facts or logic will change their minds and I don't even remotely try. It's your thing - go for it but don't expect me to respond with anything more than a "yeah, ok." I only push back when they step into my life and either threaten me (and it can be done with smiles) or start pretending it's a valid science. It's not. It will never be (OT/NT/Koran/etc.)

Trying to changing peoples minds is not the solution. You can't. But we can push back and demand it be kept at a distance. Hopefully it will continue to diminish. At some point in the future (100 years?) it will be relegated to the minor historical/mythological status it deserves. Attrition is the only solution. Banning it, arguing it, discussion it - none of that works. As I said, you can't reason people out of something they reasoned themselves into. Once they cross the logic line, there is nothing to discuss. The NT contains it's own refuting evidence and any parallel reading will make them stand out. If people ignore them or hand-wave them away, it's beyond discussion. At that point, a scholarly analysis and discussion is pretty much a wasted effort.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 07-10-2011).]

quote Originally posted by TK: I was in the same boat but I do remember I always had a skeptical view of it. It was hard to shake that off and just fall in line. I had to put up or shut up and I did. But I also realized over time that people stick with it despite the overwhelming evidence that the OT/NT is not true at any paranormal/supernatural level for one single reason - they want to. No amount of facts or logic will change their minds and I don't even remotely try. It's your thing - go for it but don't expect me to respond with anything more than a "yeah, ok." I only push back when they step into my life and either threaten me (and it can be done with smiles) or start pretending it's a valid science. It's not. It will never be (OT/NT/Koran/etc.) Trying to changing peoples minds is not the solution. You can't. But we can push back and demand it be kept at a distance. Hopefully it will continue to diminish. At some point in the future (100 years?) it will be relegated to the minor historical/mythological status it deserves. Attrition is the only solution. Banning it, arguing it, discussion it - none of that works. As I said, you can't reason people out of something they reasoned themselves into. Once they cross the logic line, there is nothing to discuss. The NT contains it's own refuting evident and any parallel reading will make them stand out. If people ignore them or hand-wave them away, it's beyond discussion. At that point, a scholarly analysis and discussion is pretty much a wasted effort.

Excellent post and spot on.

And I do agree with you that today we are made available to so much more historical evidence and information that in a few generations, religion will be diminished greatly, although will still be around. People still go to palm readers and swear they are reincarnated of an Egyptian Pharaoh.

We all experienced the "reality moment" when we figured out that Santa Claus wasn't real. Was there a St. Nicholas (for which Santa Claus/Sinterklaas based on) that once lived? Yes! But over time the stories of St. Nicholas transformed into mythological legend and folklore that in America we all know as Santa Claus who rides a sleigh of flying reindeer and gives gifts to all the children of the world in a single winter night.

Many toddlers or young kids truly believe that Santa Claus is real. Because the culture and their parents tell that to them. But children eventually figure it out that Santa was really just Dad and Mom (or government).

Religion is much like mythological legends and folklore, but there is something inherently different about religion's approach verses Santa Claus. Maybe its the daily exposure or that Religion uses nemesis or archenemies that allows it to be told in an "us vs them" and that has a stronger attachment because you can be on Team Jesus and therefore the good team and anybody that is not on Team Jesus is the enemy. Probably a combinations of many things. Santa didn't have an archenemy nor did the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, and maybe that is a reason why those mythological creatures/person can be disbelieved quite quickly in life.

I find it utterly fascinating that grown adults believe in and dedicate their lives to a mythological being, like Jesus being the Son of God. But I know there isn't really much use discussing it with religious people. But for those on the fence or between Agnostics/Atheist, it makes for great discussions.

My own personal struggle that I have with those who are very religious, is that I cannot trust their judgement. Especially when you catch them in a bald face lie, then I really can't trust their judgement. It's not that I look at religious people as idiots or unproductive, it is that I cannot really trust the decisions that they make, especially when it affects other people. For example in a work environment, if very religious people are in charge of hiring and promoting they often times, if not all the time make the wrong decision. I've seen this over and over and over again.

I'm friends with very religious people and I enjoy their company, and they knowing I'm Agnostic/Atheist, they all think I'm just a lost soul or possessed. And yes they preach to me all the time. They tell me that they will pray for me (I seriously doubt they ever do mention me in any prayers). We cannot change grown peoples minds, that is for sure. But it's I enjoy the topic of discussion.

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 07-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Excellent post and spot on. And I do agree with you that today we are made available to so much more historical evidence and information that in a few generations, religion will be diminished greatly, although will still be around. People still go to palm readers and swear they are reincarnated of an Egyptian Pharaoh. We all experienced the "reality moment" when we figured out that Santa Claus wasn't real. Was there a St. Nicholas (for which Santa Claus/Sinterklaas based on) that once lived? Yes! But over time the stories of St. Nicholas transformed into mythological legend and folklore that in America we all know as Santa Claus who rides a sleigh of flying reindeer and gives gifts to all the children of the world in a single winter night. Many toddlers or young kids truly believe that Santa Claus is real. Because the culture and their parents tell that to them. But children eventually figure it out that Santa was really just Dad and Mom (or government). Religion is much like mythological legends and folklore, but there is something inherently different about religion's approach verses Santa Claus. Maybe its the daily exposure or that Religion uses nemesis or archenemies that allows it to be told in an "us vs them" and that has a stronger attachment because you can be on Team Jesus and therefore the good team and anybody that is not on Team Jesus is the enemy. Probably a combinations of many things. Santa didn't have an archenemy nor did the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, and maybe that is a reason why those mythological creatures/person can be disbelieved quite quickly in life. I find it utterly fascinating that grown adults believe in and dedicate their lives to a mythological being, like Jesus being the Son of God. But I know there isn't really much use discussing it with religious people. But for those on the fence or between Agnostics/Atheist, it makes for great discussions. My own personal struggle that I have with those who are very religious, is that I cannot trust their judgement. Especially when you catch them in a bald face lie, then I really can't trust their judgement. It's not that I look at religious people as idiots or unproductive, it is that I cannot really trust the decisions that they make, especially when it affects other people. For example in a work environment, if very religious people are in charge of hiring and promoting they often times, if not all the time make the wrong decision. I've seen this over and over and over again. I'm friends with very religious people and I enjoy their company, and they knowing I'm Agnostic/Atheist, they all think I'm just a lost soul or possessed. And yes they preach to me all the time. They tell me that they will pray for me (I seriously doubt they ever do mention me in any prayers). We cannot change grown peoples minds, that is for sure. But it's I enjoy the topic of discussion.

Do you realize how big of an ass you are? Really, do you know it and like it, or do you just not realize it?

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Do you realize how big of an ass you are? Really, do you know it and like it, or do you just not realize it?

As you quoted all of what I posted. Can you elaborate that for which you are upset about?

Just because I don't believe in Jesus doesn't make me an ass. Unless I'm riding one to Bethlehem.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: As you quoted all of what I posted. Can you elaborate that for which you are upset about? Just because I don't believe in Jesus doesn't make me an ass. Unless I'm riding one to Bethlehem.

It's the way you talk, like you are above everyone. You assume that religious people are all nuts and idiots. You even said that you couldn't trust the judgment of a religious person . I'm not upset over anything because you haven't offended me; I just think you are a very hateful and demeaning person. I quoted everything because it was the tone that makes your posts so ridiculous.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: It's the way you talk, like you are above everyone. You assume that religious people are all nuts and idiots. You even said that you couldn't trust the judgment of a religious person . I'm not upset over anything because you haven't offended me; I just think you are a very hateful and demeaning person. I quoted everything because it was the tone that makes your posts so ridiculous.

Sorry! It's just my experience with religious people and its just the way it is.

And it's very typical of religious people to call me hateful also.

You're just a carbon copy of those I know that are religious. Act the same, think the same, react the same, say the exact same responses. Like robots!

It just never fails. I'm sorry it pisses you off. What can I say other than that?

Just find comfort in your God and pray for me. *You won't though*

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 07-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Sorry! It's just my experience with religious people and its just the way it is. And it's very typical of religious people to call me hateful also. You're just a carbon copy of those I know that are religious. Act the same, think the same, react the same, say the exact same responses. Like robots! It just never fails. I'm sorry it pisses you off. What can I say other than that? Just find comfort in your God and pray for me. *You won't though*

Well, if you hear it from multiple people, I'd expect you to eventually listen.
Oh well. I guess you'll always be this way.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Well, if you hear it from multiple people, I'd expect you to eventually listen. Oh well. I guess you'll always be this way.

I listen. But don't believe what I hear.

Just wave at me and say; "Enjoy the heat muddachucka."

It will make you feel a lot better. Trust me.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: It's the way you talk, like you are above everyone. You assume that religious people are all nuts and idiots. You even said that you couldn't trust the judgment of a religious person . I'm not upset over anything because you haven't offended me; I just think you are a very hateful and demeaning person. I quoted everything because it was the tone that makes your posts so ridiculous.

I don't take it that way at all. At most I think Wichita is just being open and direct based on his experience. He's certainly not throttling for the sake of avoiding conflict. I find that the faithful sometimes take criticism of their faith personally since you are effectively rejecting them and their beliefs rather than rejection their "god". Since I have never been approached by a god I can correctly say I am not rejection a god. I am rejecting the premise expressed by fellow humans. But if someone doesn't want to hear the push back, don't bring it up.

That is the main reason I rarely go at it with people. I have no need or desire to change someone's mind. They got into it (or were taught it). If they like it, more power to them. I will maybe discuss it if there if it's a leisurely swapping of opinions. I have one friend I have talked with and we just laid out our positions, agreed that we understood and opened another beer. Yep, so how about them Contra's ...

But considering the factionalization even within the Christian/Jewish/Muslim communities, claiming an atheist is being hateful strikes me as a bit myopic although I understand the stress.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 07-10-2011).]

quote Originally posted by TK: I don't take it that way at all. At most I think Wichita is just being open and direct based on his experience. He's certainly not throttling for the sake of avoiding conflict. I find that the faithful sometimes take criticism of their faith personally since you are effectively rejecting them and their beliefs rather than rejection their "god". Since I have never been approached by a god I can correctly say I am not rejection a god. I am rejecting the premise expressed by fellow humans. But if someone doesn't want to hear the push back, don't bring it up. That is the main reason I rarely go at it with people. I have no need or desire to change someone's mind. They got into it (or were taught it). If they like it, more power to them. I will maybe discuss it if there if it's a leisurely swapping of opinions. I have one friend I have talked with and we just laid out our positions, agreed that we understood and opened another beer. Yep, so how about them Contra's ... But considering the factionalization even within the Christian/Jewish/Muslim communities, claiming an atheist is being hateful strikes me as a bit myopic although I understand the stress.

I didn't take your posts as being hateful at all, just observing. I completely respect your opinion. However, I didn't feel that same respect with Wichita, so I stand by my statements.

I have a pretty thick skin... I'm not offended by anything Wichita has said; I just think he's being an ass about it. Wichita brings up "religious nuts" in so many threads it's uncountable, so I think it's fair to call him hateful. Just because someone doesn't believe in a god doesn't mean he is outside of the realm of hate. On the other hand, just because someone does believe in a god doesn't mean he is outside of the realm of hate. Many times, there is hate from atheists, and many times, there is hate from religious folk.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I didn't take your posts as being hateful at all, just observing. I completely respect your opinion. However, I didn't feel that same respect with Wichita, so I stand by my statements. I have a pretty thick skin... I'm not offended by anything Wichita has said; I just think he's being an ass about it. Wichita brings up "religious nuts" in so many threads it's uncountable, so I think it's fair to call him hateful. Just because someone doesn't believe in a god doesn't mean he is outside of the realm of hate. On the other hand, just because someone does believe in a god doesn't mean he is outside of the realm of hate. Many times, there is hate from atheists, and many times, there is hate from religious folk.

No doubt, he's vocal for sure and I will leave him to stand on his own. I can name many crazy people with faith and occasionally the faith is the source of the crazy but they certainly don't have a monopoly on it. There we both agree. But I can't attribute his strong opinions to him being an atheist. Religious discussions rarely go well by definition and even worse over the internet where you can't read people's expressions. There are a couple of people on this forum that are totally different in person than their forum persona. I suspect Wichita is the same. If not, I think pitchforks and torches are in order.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 07-10-2011).]

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I have a pretty thick skin... I'm not offended by anything Wichita has said; I just think he's being an ass about it. Wichita brings up "religious nuts" in so many threads it's uncountable, so I think it's fair to call him hateful. Just because someone doesn't believe in a god doesn't mean he is outside of the realm of hate. On the other hand, just because someone does believe in a god doesn't mean he is outside of the realm of hate. Many times, there is hate from atheists, and many times, there is hate from religious folk.

Actually you do take offense to it. But that's ok. As I did a Find search to see if I ever mention anything about "religious nuts" on this thread and only you have mention that.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: It's not that I look at religious people as idiots or unproductive, I'm friends with very religious people and I enjoy their company,

I don't hate religious people at all. I attended mass today as I do every Sunday. My kids go to Catholic Schools. I don't have an issue with religion at all.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: I don't hate religious people at all. I don't have an issue with religion at all.

I stand corrected. I must misinterpret your posts heavily because many times I've thought "Why does he hate religion so much?"

I wasn't trying to quote you verbatim on "religious nuts", but nonetheless I'm wrong. I'll try and read your posts differently--maybe I'm creating a self-fulfilling prophesy by already assuming you hate religion.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I stand corrected. I must misinterpret your posts heavily because many times I've thought "Why does he hate religion so much?" I wasn't trying to quote you verbatim on "religious nuts", but nonetheless I'm wrong. I'll try and read your posts differently--maybe I'm creating a self-fulfilling prophesy by already assuming you hate religion.

Me and a friend of mine were discussing religion vs. atheists (he is very religious although displays major hypocrisy in my mind), but that is beside the point.

His argument against atheist is that they hate God. He says that every time he has any debates the merits of his version of Christianity (he believes he has been instilled special powers from Jesus and that he can call on and see Angels). He says that Atheist are always so passionate or heated in their debate against religion that they appear angry at God.

I just tell him it's like the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Those two groups get into VERY spirited debates and discussions and they don't often budge on their Party's platform. Atheist aren't angry at God just passionate about their views.

But Christians believe they are the righteous ones and everybody else is just going to hell. Atheist believe that religion isn't the answer because they rely on science and knowledge, but also believe that everybody will met the same fate in life. Lights out you had your run. No special group gets a city full of streets of gold with beautiful women with bird wings playing harps and all you do is praise a God who sits on a throne for eternity and the rest forever burn in a lava pit being laughed at by a half-bull, half-man with red skin.

I'm not saying that Christianity holds no value. It does with lessons in morality and compassion and the Golden Rule in all. But beyond that, it's incredibly silly to believe in some Son God and .... You know, what ever you think that makes you a "true" Christian and gives you a pass card to heaven. I guess I cannot really understand what makes grown people believe in this so full hardheartedly. It's the same huge groups of people who believe that Barack Obama will save them from disparity and take care of them for the rest of eternity.

There are plenty of stupid people in this world, and plenty of very smart people in this world. I have met Christians who were smart, but I have never met a stupid Atheist. The vast majority of the world's population who are illiterate or functionally illiterate will be very religious. But you won't find an illiterate Atheist.

I'm sorry that it offends Christians, but there isn't any other way to really tell it to you other than you should really question your faith.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: There are plenty of stupid people in this world, and plenty of very smart people in this world. I have met Christians who were smart, but I have never met a stupid Atheist. The vast majority of the world's population who are illiterate or functionally illiterate will be very religious. But you won't find an illiterate Atheist. I'm sorry that it offends Christians, but there isn't any other way to really tell it to you other than you should really question your faith.

I've met many stupid Atheists, so maybe you just hang with the right crowd
By stupid, I really mean unintelligent, belligerent fools.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I've met many stupid Atheists, so maybe you just hang with the right crowd By stupid, I really mean unintelligent, belligerent fools.

I'm going to call you out on that one and say you are lying or completely misinterpreting.

Yes, there are people who just don't care about religion and don't speak about god and smoke pot all day long. But they aren't Atheist. They are just non-religious Christians. Very Religious Christians, such as yourself, believe that everybody besides your Christian sect is an Atheist.

The next time you see these stupid, unintelligent, belligerent fools, just ask them if they believe in Jesus is God, and they will say yes. Just because they don't practice it, go to church or evangelize it to others, doesn't make them Atheist. Just makes them non-practicing Christians.

Interesting topic, and some equally interesting and well thought out answers.

My response will be much more simplistic, because it can be.

I believe that science and religious teachings are not mutually exclusive. I believe that when the big picture is understood, that they will possibly be used to explain and/or reinforce each other. (Imagine that!)
I look around at the world and the universe, and just cannot fathom that everything that is there - and everything that we "are" - happened purely by chance.
I also have to believe that all of that energy that makes up our conscience, has to go somewhere when we die, besides just evaporating into the aether.
I also believe that the Bible is not chronologically accurate. It was written by people living in much simpler times. For people living in much simpler times. But, unlike many, I don't think it's a big deal. We're nitpicking it to death and missing the big picture, which is what's really important.

We are still, as a species, learning. We haven't gotten the big picture yet. But we're trying.
Until then, we're doing the best we can to explain some really heavyweight stuff, with a lot of faith and a little knowledge.
We're doing the best we know how, with what we've got to work with.

I don't talk about my religious beliefs very much, because I believe that religion (actually "faith") is personal.
I am a Christian, but I am not evangelical.
Evangelists tend to annoy me. (Being polite about it.)
I believe that we are all given a choice. But that is our choice. My choice.
You can tell me something once. Then leave me alone and let me go on about my business.

I pray daily. I can barely remember the last time I set foot in a church.

I attempt to have an open mind, and to continue to learn.

Peace. We're all in this together.

Just to lighten things up...


and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...ng_You_Know_Is_Wrong

quote Originally posted by Wichita: I'm going to call you out on that one and say you are lying or completely misinterpreting. Yes, there are people who just don't care about religion and don't speak about god and smoke pot all day long. But they aren't Atheist. They are just non-religious Christians. Very Religious Christians, such as yourself, believe that everybody besides your Christian sect is an Atheist. The next time you see these stupid, unintelligent, belligerent fools, just ask them if they believe in Jesus is God, and they will say yes. Just because they don't practice it, go to church or evangelize it to others, doesn't make them Atheist. Just makes them non-practicing Christians.

Wichita, you don't know everything.
First off, I don't believe everyone out of my "sect" is atheist. I'm Christian... that's it. Not Baptist or Catholic or Protestant... just Christian. All those are Christians to me as well. I know many that speak out against religion, that are not very intelligent. Just because they don't believe in a god doesn't make someone intelligent, Wichita. That might be something that you've observed over the years, but it isn't true. I've met very intelligent atheists as well as very dumb atheists.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Wichita, you don't know everything. First off, I don't believe everyone out of my "sect" is atheist. I'm Christian... that's it. Not Baptist or Catholic or Protestant... just Christian. All those are Christians to me as well. I know many that speak out against religion, that are not very intelligent. Just because they don't believe in a god doesn't make someone intelligent, Wichita. That might be something that you've observed over the years, but it isn't true. I've met very intelligent atheists as well as very dumb atheists.

That is fine and dandy, but every test has shown that Atheists are generally more intelligent in all categories, hold greater percentage of college degrees and advance degrees, and even know more about religion than people who are religious.

People who are self-described as Atheist/Agnostic are barely even 4% of the American Population. Yeah! There is a greater number of people who consider themselves non-religious (12.5%), but deep down they will pray to Jesus or Buddha when they get scared at night or when a family member gets cancer.

There is a greater percentage of gay people than there are Atheist/Agnostic, so you must know a lot of gay people who are intelligent and a lot of gay people who are stupid, right?

Oh... You don't hardly know any gay people? Then you don't hardly know any Atheist/Agnostic.

That's the reason why I'm calling you out. Just like Muslims lie to a non-believer, so will Christians.

[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 07-10-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Wichita: That is fine and dandy, but every test has shown that Atheists are generally more intelligent in all categories, hold greater percentage of college degrees and advance degrees, and even know more about religion than people who are religious. People who are self-described as Atheist/Agnostic are barely even 4% of the American Population. Yeah! There is a greater number of people who consider themselves non-religious (12.5%), but deep down they will pray to Jesus or Buddha when they get scared at night or when a family member gets cancer. There is a greater percentage of gay people than there are Atheist/Agnostic, so you must know a lot of gay people who are intelligent and a lot of gay people who are stupid, right? Oh... You don't hardly know any gay people? Then you don't hardly know any Atheist/Agnostic. That's the reason why I'm calling you out. Just like Muslims lie to a non-believer, so will Christians.

Where did you get that study? MANY more than just 4% of the people I have met declare themselves as an Atheist. I'm talking, literally have told me that they do not believe in any god and are atheist. An incredible amount of people have said that they are agnostic. I actually have 7 gay friends, and have met way more gay people through them, though I can't call every gay man I've met a friend. I'm friends with 4 lesbians. Two of them are in a relationship with one another. The other two are single.

Out of my homosexual friends, I'd only say one of them is stupid. The others are average to intelligent, and my friend Chris is VERY intelligent and I love talking to him because he always challenges me.

I know far more atheists than gay people, and WAYYY more agnostic people than homosexual.

Wichita, I'm not lying to you. That would be a sin, and I honestly try my hardest not to sin. You don't have to believe me... but please don't keep calling me a liar. I'm not.

Well, I've said it before, and I'll say it all my life....if ANY "god" wants my belief, then they better saddle up, git down here and show their face....I'm not scared of the boogeyman and really DO consider ALL "gods" and religions nothing but boogeymen....fables and tales designed to instil fear in the individual in order to gain compliance with another individuals political, authoritarian, or material goals. Anton LeVey was no different in that area, but at least he was honest enough to admit it, and that I respect.

Some bogeyman that is going to punish me after I am dead for something I did 10 years or 20 years ago that somebody else didnt like......yeh, RRRIIIGGGHHHTTTTT......well, you folks keep on sending me to hell, and I'll keep on sinning, and we will both be happy

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Wichita, I'm not lying to you. That would be a sin, and I honestly try my hardest not to sin. You don't have to believe me... but please don't keep calling me a liar. I'm not.

Were it so easy to claim honesty about anything... And while that reason in your heart may be "the rules", that does not prove what you speak is truth to someone else. Thats where it gets hard because, after all, you could just be trying to further some agenda of your own, right? (For the record, I believe you. )
Welcome to the real world and some of its problems.

I see a long string of statements but no questions about religion.

quote Originally posted by Renegade blob: To put it simply, I'm an atheist. Recently I've been wondering more and more about religion and it's relationship with science, specifically biology and astronomy; the latter which I am very interested in. Things that make a human life seem infinitely insignificant astound me to no end. I've had simple religion vs. atheist conversations before, but they didn't really answer many questions. So I figured I'd turn to the forum for some good answers, and maybe provide some answers for questions about atheism if you have some. The following is a short list of reasons why I don't believe in a God of any sort in a very sober sort of way, just to be warned: -The main reason is that I'm just not wired to believe, blame it on my upbringing or my sort of logic, but the idea of someone in the sky controlling everything is a bit to far out there. But that's an easy one to answer; lack of faith. -The amount of knowledge we have is the second. For this thread I'd like to keep the questioning of science to the minimum. Evolution is a validated theory (by scientific definition of theory), but a close look could find some holes. And what we know about astronomy is true. Meaning that we know our cosmic place, the universe is 13.7ish billion years old, and that life could be started without intelligent design. My question is, how does religion cope with evolution, fossils, or how the earth is billions of years old, not thousands? -The third one, which can describe why religion is, can be explained with the assumption of evolution. For example; let's say that one day a caveman woke up and wondered why. Why does the grass grow? Why does the sun rise, and set? And why am I here and thinking these thoughts? From my point of view, it's much easier for him or her to say something like "God does it" rather than try to understand photosynthesis, the solar system, and a complex brain. Of course this is a long way from the complex religions we have today, but it could explain how they evolved. -And some other, less relative points I know that the majority of this forum is religious, and I am not trying to say I'm right, you're wrong. I'm just looking for a logical AND CIVIL rebuttal. It doesn't really matter what religion the answer is from; for this topic, I think that a generalization of monotheism is acceptable. Also please keep this kind, I would like to just have a conversation on how religions explain the scientific discoveries that can act to denounce religion other than just explicitly saying it's wrong. I would really like to keep other topics out such as the teaching of evolution or creationism in science class, weather or not one religion (or lack there of) is ruining the world, and the cultural impact of beliefs. I'd also like to say that I realize that I have wrote this in a way that could be taken as offensive. I left all the "but I can see your side of the story" out due to length, and to be honest, that's the part I hope you can fill in. And for those of you still reading, thanks in advance! Here's to hoping this doesn't end up in the trash can.

.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Were it so easy to claim honesty about anything... And while that reason in your heart may be "the rules", that does not prove what you speak is truth to someone else. Thats where it gets hard because, after all, you could just be trying to further some agenda of your own, right? (For the record, I believe you. ) Welcome to the real world and some of its problems.

I honestly don't know how to prove to him that I'm NOT lying. I most certainly don't want to link my Facebook contacts here just for their own privacy, but that's the only thing I can think of.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Sigh! People who never look outside the sources of the Bible is always troubling, but I understand that no other bodies of written works matter except for the Bible (for what ever version you pick)

You make an assumption there. I'm well aware that the book of John is the latest of the Gospels, and the date that your source estimates is acceptable (90AD). This does not negate the fact that it is an eyewitness account by an author (The Disciple that Jesus loved) that also wrote three epistles and an apocalyptic that maintain an internally consistent written style. One can more than reasonably attribute these to the Apostle John.

quote Secular analysis

Yes, yes. John is out of order for a reason. John is explaining to Jewish readers who Jesus is, not what He did. There were plenty of eyewitnesses to what He did and what He did next and so on that were available at the time. John had a different perspective to show. "This was here to symbolize, but I AM the fulfillment..."

quote Yeah! I know, I'm just possessed by demons and doing the devils work. And there isn't any way a person who has been devotedly religious and religiously indoctrinated to ever see the real truth behind their religious smoke screen. It's like convincing a leftist to be a conservative. People choose their sides, dig in deep and hold their ground. I saw it early in my life that religion and Jesus was a farce, even though I was brought up in a very religious home, so I was able to stop it from becoming an unshakable indoctrination that would have probably carried with me for the rest of my life like all the other religious people. I feel sorry for those who are mind trapped into religion, but so long as that person is harmless to others, it actually doesn't matter.

No I don't believe that you're possessed by demons. I believe that, like most people, particularly young people, you want(ed) out of the Church for one reason or another, so you asked questions and determined that the answers were not to your liking, so you felt released to walk away. It happens. Many others ask the same hard questions and find that the answers do satisfy. What was the difference between Judas and Peter? Judas wanted his own life, and his vision of how things should be - as keeper of the disciples' money, likely he was looking for an important position in the new kingdom of the Messiah. When he realized that Jesus was to die to bring about the new way, he was out of there. Peter denied Jesus before men three times, yet his aspirations were always toward God. He realized that, no matter what happened, there was no other place to go for the Truth. Both men failed, but they went in different directions. And, since I don't expect you to throw silver coins into a field, etc, I would remind you of the parable of the prodigal son.

I feel sorry for those who can't bring themselves to see beyond what the world feeds them. God loves each of us with a boundless love, and it has to hurt Him terribly when most won't make a decision to accept Him. Such is the burden of free will. Still, it won't harm you if I pray for you, I'd expect....

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: I say that these scholars have a very limited view of what is possible. .

I have a VERY hard time calling relegious or legal types "scholars"...they study nothing besides thoughts and opinions, with no proof besides what somewhone else in the past has said or did. They have no hard facts to present--unlike scientists or technical fields who can back up thier claims with proof.

PROOVE "god"...not arguments about what YOU think he wants, not historical texts thousands of years old...not stories about what yer daddy or mamma taught ya...HARD, MEASURABLE proof. In the hear and now.....

To put it simply, "god" and his people can either put up, or shut up.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 07-10-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Renegade blob: A cloud might weigh a lot, but so does air. Example from internet: "Consider a hypothetical but typical small cloud at an altitude of 10,000 feet, comprising one cubic kilometer and having a liquid water content of 1.0 gram per cubic meter. The total mass of the cloud particles is about 1 million kilograms, which is roughly equivalent to the weight of 500 automobiles. But the total mass of the air in that same cubic kilometer is about 1 billion kilograms--1,000 times heavier than the liquid!" .

Thank you for your comment regarding "air," wasn't the question(s).

quote Okay Mister Know-it-all. Tell me, what's the weight of a typical cloud? Once you've gotten the answer, tell us how does it fly?

The question was regarding a typical weight of a “cloud" (not air) and how is this possible? The question is an obvious one which most people on this earth have witnessed and experienced with their very own eyes-albeit in the form of rain, snow flakes, and/or hail. Therefore, no special apparatus needed just a pair of eyes. Please explain scientifically and/or otherwise how does this take place that a cloud(s) can contain tons and tons of water yet it floats?

quote Originally posted by madcurl: The question was regarding a typical weight of a “cloud" (not air) and how is this possible? The question is an obvious one which most people on this earth have witnessed and experienced with their very own eyes-albeit in the form of rain, snow flakes, and/or hail. Therefore, no special apparatus needed just a pair of eyes. Please explain scientifically and/or otherwise how does this take place that a cloud(s) can contain tons and tons of water yet it floats?

Douglas Wesley, a senior meteorologist in the Cooperative Program for Operational Meteorology, Education and Training (COMET) at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, explains: The water and ice particles in the clouds we see are simply too small to feel the effects of gravity. As a result, clouds appear to float on air.

Clouds are composed primarily of small water droplets and, if it's cold enough, ice crystals. The vast majority of clouds you see contain droplets and/or crystals that are too small to have any appreciable fall velocity. So the particles continue to float with the surrounding air. For an analogy closer to the ground, think of tiny dust particles that, when viewed against a shaft of sunlight, appear to float in the air.

Indeed, the distance from the center of a typical water droplet to its edge--its radius--ranges from a few microns (thousandths of a millimeter) to a few tens of microns (ice crystals are often a bit larger). And the speed with which any object falls is related to its mass and surface area--which is why a feather falls more slowly than a pebble of the same weight. For particles that are roughly spherical, mass is proportional to the radius cubed (r3); the downward-facing surface area of such a particle is proportional to the radius squared (r2). Thus, as a tiny water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important than its shape and the droplet falls faster. Even a large droplet having a radius of 100 microns has a fall velocity of only about 27 centimeters per second (cm/s). And because ice crystals have more irregular shapes, their fall velocities are relatively smaller.

Upward vertical motions, or updrafts, in the atmosphere also contribute to the floating appearance of clouds by offsetting the small fall velocities of their constituent particles. Clouds generally form, survive and grow in air that is moving upward. Rising air expands as the pressure on it decreases, and that expansion into thinner, high-altitude air causes cooling. Enough cooling eventually makes water vapor condense, which contributes to the survival and growth of the clouds. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. In both cases, though, the atmospheric ascent is sufficient to negate the small fall velocities of cloud particles.

Another way to illustrate the relative lightness of clouds is to compare the total mass of a cloud to the mass of the air in which it resides. Consider a hypothetical but typical small cloud at an altitude of 10,000 feet, comprising one cubic kilometer and having a liquid water content of 1.0 gram per cubic meter. The total mass of the cloud particles is about 1 million kilograms, which is roughly equivalent to the weight of 500 automobiles. But the total mass of the air in that same cubic kilometer is about 1 billion kilograms--1,000 times heavier than the liquid!

So, even though typical clouds do contain a lot of water, this water is spread out for miles in the form of tiny water droplets or crystals, which are so small that the effect of gravity on them is negligible. Thus, from our vantage on the ground, clouds seem to float in the sky.
NEXT!!!!!!!!

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: I have a VERY hard time calling relegious or legal types "scholars"...they study nothing besides thoughts and opinions, with no proof besides what somewhone else in the past has said or did. They have no hard facts to present--unlike scientists or technical fields who can back up thier claims with proof.

Yet you would regard this very opinion with disdain if it were directed at evolution and big bang. But it's all opinion what happened one million, five million, 13.7 billion years ago. There are no facts or proof of any of it. Just what "scholars" say.

quote PROOVE "god"...not arguments about what YOU think he wants, not historical texts thousands of years old...not stories about what yer daddy or mamma taught ya...HARD, MEASURABLE proof. In the hear and now..... To put it simply, "god" and his people can either put up, or shut up.

Prove the big bang. Prove evolution - not arguments about what you think happened to create the Universe. And there are no texts older than a hundred fifty or so years old. No stories of what your sixth grade teacher or PBS told ya... HARD, MEASURABLE proof. In the here and now.....

To put it simply, "evolutionists" and "big bang theorists" can either put up, or shut up.

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: I say that these scholars have a very limited view of what is possible. I also notice that a rather large percentage of your posts, including your tete-a-tete with Bdub, has a lot to do with trusting people. You speak of catching Christians in a "bald faced lie," and seem to be intent on questioning the honesty of others, particularly those who don't agree with you. Just an observation. You will find things wrong with me, just like any other human being. Stop looking at me. Look at Who and What and Why I am looking at. All I can say.

A lot of people lie all the time. They either exaggerate or just plain out lie. Christians set themselves up to a higher standard than the rest of the people in America, because they "claim" they have God on their side and that God helps them become a better person and God has plans for them. Christians try to control our government and dictate our society. Prayers in school, abortion, gay marriage bans, Sunday Blue Laws, creationism taught in public schools and the list goes on. A politician running for office has to portray himself as religious in the Christian sector in order to be electable. Plus Christianity dominates our society by having christian churches on ever street corner in America.

So if you consider yourself involved and touched by a higher power and everybody else hasn't, then you come up to me and just straight out lie, what the hell....I mean heaven how do you think I'm going to think about your cult?

Myself? I might have very strong opinions, but I don't knowing lie to anybody. But I know a lot of people do and many of those people are Christians.

Let me put it to you this way. Two questions...if you speak about trust. 1. Would you say nothing if your daughter decided to marry an Atheist and therefore would be influenced by him and eventually become an Atheist herself? 2. If you had a company that was a thriving business and you were getting too old to run the company, would you hand it over to an Atheist?