Metro Jacksonville

Quote from: ronchamblin on June 09, 2012, 03:13:34 AM
I could send great sums to support the GOP, so that I could have in power guys to assist me in keeping more of my money, guys who want to help me and the other the rich be richer..... guys who are on the side of the god who has been helping the rich for a long time.  The rich and their god are on the same side.  And they have the wonderful evangelicals along too.  It makes for a good team.

Really? I'm a evangelical Christian and a Democrat, perhaps I worship a different God? Anyone can find fakes and flimflam artists hiding in the churches or even occasionally disguised as church leaders. Unless something or someone totally human mistreated you at the mission when you needed help or food. It seems a rather narrow, condescending attitude to attack all Christian people, who as a whole, want to help.

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 09, 2012, 11:10:15 AM

Quote from: ronchamblin on June 09, 2012, 03:13:34 AM
I could send great sums to support the GOP, so that I could have in power guys to assist me in keeping more of my money, guys who want to help me and the other the rich be richer..... guys who are on the side of the god who has been helping the rich for a long time.  The rich and their god are on the same side.  And they have the wonderful evangelicals along too.  It makes for a good team.

Really? I'm a evangelical Christian and a Democrat, perhaps I worship a different God? Anyone can find fakes and flimflam artists hiding in the churches or even occasionally disguised as church leaders. Unless something or someone totally human mistreated you at the mission when you needed help or food. It seems a rather narrow, condescending attitude to attack all Christian people, who as a whole, want to help.

OCKLAWAHA

Sheesh...

Where to begin, where to begin. (Not even sure how this thread turned into this, but oh well.)

I don't think it's a matter of finding flakes and flimflam artists 'disguised' as church leaders. I think the majority of church leaders are flakes. If those leaders are so into helping people, quick the white frock coat shit and go out and help people. Stop selling a bunch of false hope garbage to your followers (who pay tithes/dues/money to the hierarchy) and 'lead' them to the soup kitchen/job expo/the streets to actually help you. If there is a bigger waste of human time, energy, money, and resources than the church/clergy/leaders, can someone please tell me???? And yes, the rich and god have always been on the same side. The rich sell god to the poor to make them feel that the hand they've been dealt isn't so bad after all.

Quote"Really? I'm a evangelical Christian and a Democrat, perhaps I worship a different God? Anyone can find fakes and flimflam artists hiding in the churches or even occasionally disguised as church leaders. Unless something or someone totally human mistreated you at the mission when you needed help or food. It seems a rather narrow, condescending attitude to attack all Christian people, who as a whole, want to help. "  Posted by Ocklawaha

Like the very kind Evangelical Christians that told my 14 year old daughter that her mother was going to hell because she was not a Christian? 

As Ghandi states, "I like your christ, just not your christians."

I concur.

Kimberly Daniels gets her "freedom of religion" so that she doesn't have to deal with the homosexual community but wasn't it your Jesus that went out to the lepers, the whores, the unclean? Didn't he go out to the undesirables to share with them the love that was god's?  What so ever you do to the least of these you do unto me?  Hmmm, you guys really don't take very good care of  your christ if this is the standard that you hold to and then treat those that are different as Less.

I have nothing against the 3 Christians that I believe are truly following the teachings of their book.  As for the rest of the people i see and the way i see them treat others, well enough said.

Quoteauthor=ben says link=topic=15253.msg283041#msg283041 date=1339263915]
Sheesh...

Where to begin, where to begin. (Not even sure how this thread turned into this, but oh well.)

Oh, I don't know, maybe it was Ron telling the citizenry that he got robbed because the Christians and the GOP have a conspiracy going? That somehow the presence of Christians (and anyone else with a belief in a God, higher power, or pantheon) are preventing the world from experiencing real love. Wow.

QuoteI don't think it's a matter of finding flakes and flimflam artists 'disguised' as church leaders. I think the majority of church leaders are flakes.

What evidence do you present to prove that it's a majority?

QuoteIf those leaders are so into helping people, quick the white frock coat shit and go out and help people.

I worked with a health mission in Colombia (doing construction, buying food, supplies etc), it was operated by a group of churches and a wonderful Doctor from Pasto and his lovely Mexican wife. The doctor and his family, 5 people in total, lived in a tiny apartment without hot water. We saw hundreds of people and charged, um, NOTHING. Why? Because that is what Jesus would have had us to do, call it follow the leader if you want.

QuoteStop selling a bunch of false hope...

Again, you are assuming you already know all of the mysteries of the universe.

Quote...garbage to your followers (who pay tithes/dues/money to the hierarchy) and 'lead' them to the soup kitchen/job expo/the streets to actually help you

.

i don't have any "followers" Ben, and the church I attend doesn't pass around anything to collect any tithes, one simply donates what one feels he/she can donate at the door, no pressure, no questions, and that little basket works two ways. Give what you can, take what you need.

Quote...'lead' them to the soup kitchen/job expo/the streets to actually help...

Perhaps this is what you had in mind? Ever been in a jungle Ben? Most of the men in my tiny church have, it's what we do after all:

QuoteIf there is a bigger waste of human time, energy, money, and resources than the church/clergy/leaders, can someone please tell me????

Wanna meet me in Panama? Colombia? Brasil? Ron? Jenio? Just say the word and you can come along. Since we all pay our own way, and you would be just visiting, perhaps we could even spring for your airfare. Come along with me and then you can tell ALL OF US what a waste of time it was.

QuoteAnd yes, the rich and god have always been on the same side. The rich sell god to the poor to make them feel that the hand they've been dealt isn't so bad after all.

I certainly won't defend the rich, I know few who qualify by our standards, but YOU Ben, you and I are rich beyond your wildest dreams when you stand in the rain forest and look into the eyes of those who live there. Our guys who go on these various missions mostly live in WGV (St Johns River area) with a few scattered up the river as far as Riverside, all of us have or had regular American jobs, incredibly rich American jobs.

OCKLAWAHA

lol, RexMontana!

Quote from: jenio on June 09, 2012, 01:57:28 PM


Like the very kind Evangelical Christians that told my 14 year old daughter that her mother was going to hell because she was not a Christian? 

As Ghandi states, "I like your Christ, just not your Christians."

I concur.

So do I Jenio, Romans 3:23 in our 'handbook' says, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Churches are hospitals for hypocrites, not museums for saints, its a shame that many of the leaders and followers have failed so miserably to walk the walk, if they had, Ghandi would have been one of us, and he said so.

QuoteKimberly Daniels gets her "freedom of religion" so that she doesn't have to deal with the homosexual community but wasn't it your Jesus that went out to the lepers, the whores, the unclean? Didn't he go out to the undesirables to share with them the love that was god's?  What so ever you do to the least of these you do unto me?  Hmmm, you guys really don't take very good care of  your Christ if this is the standard that you hold to and then treat those that are different as Less.

Exactly, you should be a pastor, I like your message.

QuoteI have nothing against the 3 Christians that I believe are truly following the teachings of their book.  As for the rest of the people i see and the way i see them treat others, well enough said.

I don't know Ms. Daniels, but I'd have some suggested reading for her if I did:

Matthew 7:1-2 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

John 8:7 "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

As for your thoughts on going out to "the lepers, the whores, the unclean?" See my previous post and come along if you'd like.

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 09, 2012, 09:32:24 PM


I certainly won't defend the rich, I know few who qualify by our standards, but YOU Ben, you and I are rich beyond your wildest dreams when you stand in the rain forest and look into the eyes of those who live there. Our guys who go on these various missions mostly live in WGV (St Johns River area) with a few scattered up the river as far as Riverside, all of us have or had regular American jobs, incredibly rich American jobs.

OCKLAWAHA

With this comment, I completely concur. I think we can gripe and complain about how bad we have it in this country, when the truth of the matter is that we are certainly better off than 80 percent of the rest of the world.

(no retail value)

Ock.  Aware that little in life is as black and white as we would like advises us to avoid carelessly shouting our opinions with confidence.  Because of this, some of us are calmed on the issue of religion, and can proceed with steady contemplations, conveying it to others.  You tend to be reasonable while discussing the potentially volatile subject of religion, and this perhaps because you are not ensconced excessively in certain aspects of it.  This calming approach is appreciated and productive.

The integrity of a system or organization frequently suffers as a consequence of the abusive or exploitative actions of a few within it.  And the good people within attempt salvaging its integrity, while those without, urge criticism of it.

The idea and shape of Christianity reminds me of the idea of communism.  Both have origins, and both have endured various interpretations and experimenting.  Both are ongoing, and while communism has already for the most part faded from the forefront of the former societies within which it existed, Christianity is only feeling a slow and gradual decline in influence.

Was the Soviet system really an experiment with communism, or was it only several decades of a system wherein a few dictatorial individuals held sway over the masses of the Russian peoples?  There were some good attributes in Marx’s idea of communism, but these attributes never reached fruition in the brutal dictatorship in the Soviet Union.  And given the realities of human nature, I doubt if these ideal attributes could ever reach fruition.  The Soviets never engaged Marx’s communism, only its name.

Christianity and communism are similar in that both have been hijacked by some of the rather injurious and destructive attributes of human nature.  The issues with Christianity and communism reminds me of the welfare system in our country, wherein the system has been hijacked and abused by individuals deficient in motive.     

The basic idea of the man called Christ, and the idea of Christianity is to be lauded as being a belief system offering qualities one cannot deny as being a benefit to the psyche of many individuals, and to the stability of some populations.  Many of us who tend to be critical of Christianity in general, sense the conditions similar to those in communism wherein something is phony, there being those within who exploit with great effect, and those who suffer because of it.

Just as there were individuals within the communist system who knew of its potential benefits to the masses, and sought to initiate them according to the ideals of true communism, there are those in the Christian system who wish to proceed with the best intentions, to engage the best qualities of the Christian system to assist all people according the teachings of it.

But alas, in spite of the wonderful and true psychological virtues and teachings in it, something has emerged in the Christian system, something has plagued it all along, something which causes some to reject it; and this, because they have difficulty with the deceptions, the hollowness, and the mythological nature of much of it.  Common sense also teaches virtue, and the best behavior.  The saying, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, predates all of Christianity.

With time, one desires genuine associations in life, expects and seeks sincerity in their dealings, especially with something as important as a philosophy of living, and its important consequences.  Therefore, when they are confronted with the likes of a Jimmy Swaggart, a Joel O’steen, a Pat Robertson, a Jerry Falwell, etc etc …. or most of the other TV evangelists, and even the everyday projections of certain aspects of Christianity; as they observe these individuals, contemplating their words, and knowing their motives, they begin to question the entire system to which these charlatans are attached; the system which hatched these somewhat ridiculous individuals. 

Recognizing the good that your church group accomplishes, and realizing that these programs are quite distant from the deceptions of the popular Christian system as portrayed on television and in some churches, I cannot expend much energy criticizing the shape of your engagement with Christianity. 

I’m sure you can understand the frustration some of us non-Christian persons endure as we see what goes on in the name of Christianity.  It’s much like watching the suffering Soviet masses during the middle decades of the twentieth century as they were exploited and abused by the individuals ensconced in the Soviet power structure.  Just as the communist system was a lie, so it is with a significant part of the Christian system.  Even though there is much good in it, there is much that is not; and there are those who exploit it for their own good at the expense of integrity and truth, and the ultimate good of others.

Communism did not fail in Russia two decades ago.  It never existed in the first place.  The lies, absurdities, and abuses in any system, such as that of the mockery of communism, will eventually see its decline and demise because time relentlessly brings truth.  Any system fundamentally deceptive and unsound at the core will fail with time, and this, only because human nature, as rendered by that segment of humans alert to the realities of nature, seeks ultimate truth in the universe.  So if a system is not buttressed by fundamental truths, if it is not built upon foundations in concert with the laws of the universe; prepare for its fall, as time and thoughtful individuals work relentlessly to expose its fallacies and its weaknesses.

So Ock, please forgive we who occasionally snipe at the ongoing Christian system, as we must do so because we cannot endure as well as some what we perceive to be untruths and hollow actions and words, which we know to be built upon rather questionable origins in the first place.

And accept please my wish for continued progress on your projects down south, as these individuals with whom you work are I’m sure well-meaning and genuine in their work.  I embrace them, and you, as your work is fundamentally good, and far from the act of a Jimmy Swaggart or a Joel Osteen playing deceptively with basic human emotions, as in a game, for their own enhancement of power and wealth. 

Your work down south, along with the church, is a very clear confirmation of the good and productive consequences of one’s beliefs regarding Christianity, and it is to be welcomed and applauded as being sincere.  Thank you for being honest and forthright with us who believe somewhat differently than you.  I suspect that we are for the same purpose and journey, but perhaps for a while in different boats.

How did the robbery drift to this subject?

There are good people in all faiths. Being a Christian does not inherantly make a person a good person. Being a good person make a person a person a good person. Our prisons are plagued with Christians who regardless of their crimes are convinced they are going to heaven. This is a concept I have issue with. If that is correct, I have no issue not sharing that faith in the least, for if Heaven is to be filled with rapist, murders & pedophiles I certainly do not wish to be there... That is my soap box...

another comment I want to make re: something that was said by OCK goes back a bit. OCK made a about Chamblins hiring this individual whom has already robbed him once.. No responsible business owner would ever hire anyone whom had already robbed them once.. Perhaps another business that works closely with the State Prison Re-Entry program could take that chance on this individual but to ask Chamblins to take this risk is quite absurd to me.. those that want to remove themselves from their prior situations and wish to help themsleves do deserve second chances BUT it needs to be done carefully..

EVERYONE IS WELCOME.

Feel free to comment, question or debate in this new thread, HOWEVER, if anyone steps over the bounds of civility, YOU WILL BE DELETED.

Some would say that "atheism" is not a religion or but it is a belief system, so .... Hmmmmm.  The phrase "World View" is sometimes used.  Or "Philosophy of Life," all of these subjects can be openly discussed with common courtesy.

So join us on this adventure, mind your manners and let's all learn something from our brothers and sisters.

OCKLAWAHA

huh... curious how this got deemed Atheism... belief in things other than the Judeo-Christian ideology does not leave the only other option to be Atheism...

(dig the Country Joe and the Fish quote BTW)

Good point officerk.  Meanwhile, I’ll have to say that this is a welcomed new subject category because it seems that too often a thread not related to religion will, by the pressure of argument or perhaps need, evolve to it.  This continual drift to the subject indicates to me that there is an underlying interest in religion and the churches in northeast Florida. 

So….. thanks for offering the new subject category Ock.  Being an atheist, or a non-believer, I intend to continue honing my ability to be considerate to the views of those who believe there is a god, and that the man Jesus is coming back.

After all, the battle between religion and science, or religion and reason, has been going on with enthusiasm not only since the 18th century Enlightenment, but even back into the Greek and Roman times. 

Perhaps as a result of this new opportunity to discuss religions, gods, deities, heaven, hell, faith, salvation, etc etc., we will see either more Christians, Muslims, and Jews, or perhaps less of them, and more non-believers.  If the latter is accomplished, I’ll have more company. 

May the best man, woman, or god win.       

Though I definitely consider myself a Christian, I have an equal dislike for holier than thou Christians and atheists. I don't care what you are, but the second you start forcing your belief system onto me or anyone else, and holding others to standards based on your own personal code of morality, I lose all tolerance for you. Christianity should never be used as a platform for hate or discrimination, nor should atheism be used as a weapon against religion.

I have the utmost respect for anyone who treats the world at large with consideration and respect. I don't care if you're an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim, or if you worship the flying spaghetti monster. If you're a decent, compassionate, non-judgemental human being, I think you're awesome. And even as a lifelong Christian, I would happily call ten open-minded atheists or Muslims my friends over a thousand judgmental Christians.

Two of the most beautiful news stories I've seen in the last year:

Quote1) Egyptian Muslims act as Human Shields to protect Christians as they celebrate Coptic Christmas.

"I know it might not be safe," said a Muslim housewife, "yet it's either we live together, or we die together, we are all Egyptians."

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2011/01/egyptian_muslims_act_as_human_shields_for_coptic_christmas_mass.html

2) Egyptian Christians Protect Muslims during Prayer at Tahrir Square:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqXfZTgOCOE

If everyone behaved liked this, the world would be an infinitely better place.

P.S.

(http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/word_for_atheist.jpg)

I agree. The worst is the Zealot in any religion.  To me religion is a very personal thing.  It is built on faith.  Faith cannot be held in a hand it is held in a heart.  What is most import with a person and thier faith is that they know what they believe and they live it themselves not expect OTHER people to live by their faith. 

I have had too many people knock on my door and tell me that I was going to hell because I would not accept their system of idology.  This was after I politely explained my beliefs because I was asked not becuase I was trying to convert.  Remaining calm and polite I would kindly tell the individual that I had no fear of going someplace that I did not believe existed. 

I find it appalling that there is such a hubbub about prayer in our schools.  I never prayed in school, but we always had a "moment of silence" in the morning.  It was understood that this was for those that wanted to have a morning prayer before school started.  The schools are not FORCING students to pray, that would be wrong.  But the moment is available for those that wished to take advantage of it.  Why is it a problem for there to be a group of students with a common interest of religion to meet on school premises? If the meeting is not a requirement it should not be a problem. 

I am one of the minority.  My religious beliefs are not even in the .01% of the populous. But I find a lot of this political noise to be just rediculous.  It seems to be done just to make noise and that makes no sense at all.  Why does it really matter if the 10 commandments are in front of a court house? Would it be better if we had the Wiccan commandment of "Do as ye will an it harm none?"  I watch the news when the zealots on either side start and I just have to shake my head because it really doen't make sense.  Shouldn't we being making noise about more important things?

I am an atheist. That does not mean I have a worldview or a set of beliefs. It means I do not have what some others have - a belief in god.

I don't like the perception that, as an atheist, I have some core set of 'beliefs.' I don't necessarily share anything in common with other atheists, except that one thing - which is a lack of something.

And I have no time for 'secular humanists' or humanists or whatever. No problem with the concept of humanism, but rather the idea that you need to create some sort of almost-religion or civic religion to replace actual religion or the religious experience. And I really dislike the way Charles Darwin is being deified these days.

You can keep all that crap. I just want to be left alone.

Quote from: Adam W on June 20, 2012, 03:17:01 AM
I am an atheist. That does not mean I have a worldview or a set of beliefs. It means I do not have what some others have - a belief in god.

I don't like the perception that, as an atheist, I have some core set of 'beliefs.' I don't necessarily share anything in common with other atheists, except that one thing - which is a lack of something.

And I have no time for 'secular humanists' or humanists or whatever. No problem with the concept of humanism, but rather the idea that you need to create some sort of almost-religion or civic religion to replace actual religion or the religious experience. And I really dislike the way Charles Darwin is being deified these days.

You can keep all that crap. I just want to be left alone.

Fantastic post. Love it, and of course, I agree.

In my mind, organized religion is and has always been of man, by man and for man and seldom has any real bearing on any spiritual reality.  It can and has both helped and badly hurt the masses throughout time. 

Human nature being what it is, we as a people seem to need something to believe in that is greater than ourselves. As long as that is true, there will be many who step up and do their best to take advantage of those who believe and do so for selfish reasons.  That ends up with more religions and more churches as the struggle for power over others continues.

As we have become a more educated as a society,  the scary thing is that that need hasn't changed.  Few really question the teachings of their chosen organized religion.  One would think that our high tech society would breed more atheists, but it really hasn't.   We need that belief in something, in something hopefully good, so badly that it transcends even scientific realities.

Ock, while I certainly applaud your church's work in other countries, can you tell me the reason almost all major churches spend thousands helping those in other countries but often hinder the needy in their own back yards?  Why the churches who seem to do the most for the needy here in our country often have to beg for pennies when millions are being spent on new, fancy buildings? Why those of us who do try to help those in need around us are called names and often even the most religious among us try to run us out of town on that proverbial rail?

And for the record, I am not an atheist.  I do consider myself an agnostic though.  I suspect many who call themselves atheists are in fact agnostic.  I can't look at the world around us, both the good and the bad and not see something greater than us at work here.  Even if it is just Mother Nature being a hormonal bitch.

I'm so glad somebody brought up this topic, because I have a burning question.  To my understanding, Muslims worship God (they just don't call him "God", he is another name to them).  Atheists do not believe in God.  Atheists tend to lash out at anyone who does, and are especially vicious against Christians.  I have yet to see  atheists spew their views at Muslims for believing in God.  Whyizzat?  Secondly, Jenio: Jesus said, after he forgave the harlot, to GO, AND SIN NO MORE.  That is the key.  If we ask forgiveness for something that we know is a sin, then we are forgiven, and we are to stop doing it.  We are not to wave it around like a flag and say look at me, I want my rights to do this.  Thanks for allowing me to be candid here, and no malice is intended.   

Quote from: strider on June 20, 2012, 08:22:28 AM
Ock, while I certainly applaud your church's work in other countries, can you tell me the reason almost all major churches spend thousands helping those in other countries but often hinder the needy in their own back yards?  Why the churches who seem to do the most for the needy here in our country often have to beg for pennies when millions are being spent on new, fancy buildings? Why those of us who do try to help those in need around us are called names and often even the most religious among us try to run us out of town on that proverbial rail?

It would be difficult for me to get into the the heads of those who spend time, money and effort in places like Panama but refuse to help those who are hurting or broken here at home. While my church does spend virtually everything it takes in to deliver pure water, shelter and hope, for those who cannot provide it themselves in Latin America, there are many who spend their time and effort on the streets. In Las Vegas, 'Hooker's for Jesus,' works on the mean streets giving shelter, education, personal skills and purpose to sex workers seeking to break out of a life that often involves some form of bondage. In San Francisco, a group of nun's have shed their habits and are working to rescue addicted transgendered prostitutes. Locally most of the missions downtown are financed by our local churches.

The fancy building's are another subject, in Ecuador for example there is the cathedral of gold, while starving children lay on the nearby sidewalks. I believe if Jesus were here today he's kick the building down. Honestly, I don't get it either, perhaps it's a need some have to recreate 'heaven on earth,' is the motivation for building's like that, but it's not my job to judge them.

I think in choosing a church people should look beyond their statement of faith and see what they do in the trenches. I once got dragged into a Pentecostal faith healing service, and I came away from it sick at my stomach. Jesus healed people but no where do I find him throwing crutches through the air and trashing wheel chairs. Likewise churches can get detoured into judgmental actions around what people wear, what they eat and drink, how they talk and myriad other things as diverse as humanity itself.

Going into a foreign mission field, will quickly 'cure' the notion's that swirl around needless judging. When beer is the only thing safe to drink, PEOPLE DRINK BEER! Want a quick wake-up call on our culture? In Papua New Guinea, certain native children are nude, culture dictates that they be allowed to urinate or defecate at will, and without rebuke, (even in our house or on your sofa)  lest one insult the family. Weird? No, it's just a people who don't live in our tidy little world. Much if not most of what we call religion today goes beyond a set of beliefs and directly into cultural perceptions. Walking down a trail with a Colombian indian he inquired why I blew my nose into a tissue... "Why do you want to keep it?" Ya gotta know there was no 'Christian' answer for that question.

QuoteAnd for the record, I am not an atheist.  I do consider myself an agnostic though.  I suspect many who call themselves atheists are in fact agnostic.  I can't look at the world around us, both the good and the bad and not see something greater than us at work here.  Even if it is just Mother Nature being a hormonal bitch.

The English term "agnostic" is derived from the Greek "agnostos," which means, " to not know. ...  I believe this is the ultimate 'safe' position, at least in the eye's of mankind. A believer in Christ or any other religious figure must go beyond this  and commit to take a stand, I stand with Jesus. Taking such a stand should not however, mean a uncomfortable or confrontational lifestyle as one relates to his/her fellow citizens.

OCKLAWAHA

Stephen; I'm speaking of atheists as a group.  What I notice is that I don't see atheists targeting Muslims (as opposed to your basic, white-shoes and white-belt wearing, cake-toting Christians) because they believe in God and atheists aren't trying to tell Muslims any different.  It's an interesting contrast, is all I'm saying.   

Let me try to ask from another perspective.  If you are reading this and you happen to be a Muslim, do atheists bother you or anger you?  Should everyone (Christian, Jew, Muslim - it's alphabetical) who believes in God be upset that atheists are so prevalent and trying to change our beliefs because they don't have any?  I'm asking honest questions because there isn't anyplace else where I can be this frank.  Yes, I am ignorant on this subject, that's why I'm trying to learn more about why I feel what I feel.  Preferably without encountering any ugliness.     

Quote from: sandyshoes on June 20, 2012, 10:56:25 AM
Stephen; I'm speaking of atheists as a group.  What I notice is that I don't see atheists targeting Muslims (as opposed to your basic, white-shoes and white-belt wearing, cake-toting Christians) because they believe in God and atheists aren't trying to tell Muslims any different.  It's an interesting contrast, is all I'm saying.   

Quote"The clearest examples of true theocracies are found in Muslim nations. In such countries, we can learn a great deal about Islam by studying Sharia law and its enforcement...

...Women are not afforded the same worth as men. Spousal rape and battery are permissible, and unmarried female victims of rape are to be killed. Apostasy is punishable by death.

SOURCE: ATHEIST REVOLUTION - http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/02/what-sharia-law-teaches-us-about-islam.html

It would seem from this that boldly speaking against Islam could be hazardous to ones health. It also seems that when a single religion dominates society, mankind brings out knives. Likewise when an Atheist society rules, the exact same thing happens. Could it be that man is the culprit more then any system of belief's or philosophical ideals?

OCKLAWAHA

To avoid ugliness, you might start by not making the unfounded assumption that atheists aren't "spewing"â€"your word, not mineâ€"anything at Muslims. Furthermore, if you want to avoid ugliness, don't make any bizarre claims about atheists going around and "trying to change"â€"your phrase, not mineâ€"people's beliefs because "they don't have any."

Basically, sandyshoes, whether or not you realize it, you're trying to pick a fight you supposedly don't want.

What I am trying to get is a better understanding.  As Ocklawaha mentioned, (and thank you), there is a death threat against anyone who would speak against Islam.  Are atheists, then, speaking against Islam in their refusal to acknowledge the existence of God, in whom they (atheists) do not believe? 

Shame on you Stephen, you've left out the 33 crore (330 million) demigods of the Hindu faith. While they do believe in ONE god, they believe the 33 core act as administrators.

OCKLAWAHA ;D

Quote from: sandyshoes on June 20, 2012, 12:09:37 PM
Let me try to ask from another perspective.  If you are reading this and you happen to be a Muslim, do atheists bother you or anger you?  Should everyone (Christian, Jew, Muslim - it's alphabetical) who believes in God be upset that atheists are so prevalent and trying to change our beliefs because they don't have any?  I'm asking honest questions because there isn't anyplace else where I can be this frank.  Yes, I am ignorant on this subject, that's why I'm trying to learn more about why I feel what I feel.  Preferably without encountering any ugliness.   

How many Muslims do you know, Sandyshoes?

In my experience, Christians tend to be the ones who go out proselytizing. The only Muslims I've seen do it are the group of very conservative ones who set up a booth every once in awhile near the local train station and try to get people to consider Islam. The only people I've ever had come up to me and try to talk to me about my religion or get me to convert are Christians, Jehova's Witnesses and Scientologists.

I don't care what anyone believes. And if a Muslim, Christian, Jew or whatever felt it necessary to share his/her beliefs with me, I'd say "no thanks." If he/she got persistent, "no thanks" would turn into "fuck off."

What if we stopped trying to figure out who's right and who's wrong and just focused helping each other along our respective journeys?  I'm pretty sure this is what Jesus was talking about.  In his own way, I think Christopher Hitchens is trying to do the same thing.  Really, though, Jesus is better at it.  So was Ghandi, MLK, Mother Theresa. 

I wish I saw more people getting amped up to help each other out and less people trying to sound like they're particular group is more enlightened than other groups. 

Quote from: letterstosam@yahoo.com on June 20, 2012, 04:43:52 PM
  I wish I saw more people getting amped up to help each other out and less people trying to sound like they're particular group is more enlightened than other groups. 

^ B  I  N  G   O !!!!!!  +1million !

Quote from: letterstosam@yahoo.com on June 20, 2012, 04:43:52 PM
What if we stopped trying to figure out who's right and who's wrong and just focused helping each other along our respective journeys?  I'm pretty sure this is what Jesus was talking about.  In his own way, I think Christopher Hitchens is trying to do the same thing.  Really, though, Jesus is better at it.  So was Ghandi, MLK, Mother Theresa. 

I wish I saw more people getting amped up to help each other out and less people trying to sound like they're particular group is more enlightened than other groups.

By now, no doubt, Christopher Hitchens knows if he was right or not. Plato believed in an afterlife and once said that perhaps death is the greatest gift bestowed on us by the gods.

Leaning only on mankind's finite understanding of the universe seems foolish to me, when science can't even prove how we got here. For some of you that's all you need, but as a historian, there is a thread of spirituality that runs through mankind from the beginning. Why? Why would a evolving being come down out of the trees and wake up one day and say, 'hey, you know what? There is this being called God and he left us with a set of rules to follow... Did this happen to Neanderthal? Cro-Magnon? Neandertalensis? Homo sapiens?  Homo erectus?  Homo habilis? Australopithecus? or perhaps Ardipithicus radius, who according to science shared 98% of our genes.

To me it all comes back to Plato's Socrates when he asked if anyone believes in human affairs but not in humans, in equine affairs but not in horses, in flute music but not in flute players, and then asks if, similarly, any man believes in divine activities but not in divinities?

I see much less risk in believing as opposed to not believing, In the trial of Socrates, he testified that, "there is good hope that death is a blessing, for it is one of two things:  either the dead are nothing and have no perception of anything, or it is, as we are told, a change and a relocating for the soul from here to another place.  If it is complete lack of perception, like a dreamless sleep, then death would be a great advantage.  If death is like this I say it is an advantage, for all eternity would then seem to be no more than a single night  A night of dreamless sleep is great!"  Socrates considers the other option:  “If, on the other hand, death is a change from here to another place, and what we are told is true and all who have died are there, what greater blessing could there be, gentleman of the jury?  … what would one of you give to keep company with Orpheus and Musaeus, Hesiod and Homer?  I am willing to die many times if that is true.”

The Tibetan account of the first bardo after death shows striking parallels with the near-death experiences of people who have died, experienced themselves floating out of their bodies, having what appears to be real afterlife events, and then being revived.

IMAGINE!

OCKLAWAHA

Finding Mecca? http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2012/06/finding-mecca-high-tech-way-light-carpet/2350/

Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 20, 2012, 10:48:55 PM

Quote from: letterstosam@yahoo.com on June 20, 2012, 04:43:52 PM
What if we stopped trying to figure out who's right and who's wrong and just focused helping each other along our respective journeys?  I'm pretty sure this is what Jesus was talking about.  In his own way, I think Christopher Hitchens is trying to do the same thing.  Really, though, Jesus is better at it.  So was Ghandi, MLK, Mother Theresa. 

I wish I saw more people getting amped up to help each other out and less people trying to sound like they're particular group is more enlightened than other groups.

By now, no doubt, Christopher Hitchens knows if he was right or not. Plato believed in an afterlife and once said that perhaps death is the greatest gift bestowed on us by the gods.

Leaning only on mankind's finite understanding of the universe seems foolish to me, when science can't even prove how we got here. For some of you that's all you need, but as a historian, there is a thread of spirituality that runs through mankind from the beginning. Why? Why would a evolving being come down out of the trees and wake up one day and say, 'hey, you know what? There is this being called God and he left us with a set of rules to follow... Did this happen to Neanderthal? Cro-Magnon? Neandertalensis? Homo sapiens?  Homo erectus?  Homo habilis? Australopithecus? or perhaps Ardipithicus radius, who according to science shared 98% of our genes.

To me it all comes back to Plato's Socrates when he asked if anyone believes in human affairs but not in humans, in equine affairs but not in horses, in flute music but not in flute players, and then asks if, similarly, any man believes in divine activities but not in divinities?

I see much less risk in believing as opposed to not believing, In the trial of Socrates, he testified that, "there is good hope that death is a blessing, for it is one of two things:  either the dead are nothing and have no perception of anything, or it is, as we are told, a change and a relocating for the soul from here to another place.  If it is complete lack of perception, like a dreamless sleep, then death would be a great advantage.  If death is like this I say it is an advantage, for all eternity would then seem to be no more than a single night  A night of dreamless sleep is great!"  Socrates considers the other option:  “If, on the other hand, death is a change from here to another place, and what we are told is true and all who have died are there, what greater blessing could there be, gentleman of the jury?  … what would one of you give to keep company with Orpheus and Musaeus, Hesiod and Homer?  I am willing to die many times if that is true.”

The Tibetan account of the first bardo after death shows striking parallels with the near-death experiences of people who have died, experienced themselves floating out of their bodies, having what appears to be real afterlife events, and then being revived.

IMAGINE!

OCKLAWAHA

So how/why did you pick Christianity? 99.99% sure because you were born into it.

Mormonism Confronts Atheism

Although both Mormons and atheists reject the concept of the Christian God as posited by "orthodox" denominations, Mormons, like other Christian sects, still place themselves in opposition to atheists. This is likely because atheists generally have little understanding of Mormon theology, and even if they did, would still reject it. While accepting the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not require an atheist to modify basic philosophical views about reality, they obviously find the claims made by the church to be lacking in credibility.

Almost every aspect of Mormon origins, history and doctrines is filled with controversy. The story of Joseph Smith is one of the most fascinating episodes in American history which gave rise to the most successful of American-born religions. The opposition which he generated and which led to his murder has continued to the present day. Fundamentalist Christian denominations in particular, are unceasingly hostile to Mormon claims that Joseph Smith restored a corrupted Christianity, often making the charge that Mormons are not real Christians and worship a false god. Of course, if the Mormon concept of deity is true, then it would be Christians of "orthodox" denominations who worship a god that does not exist.


Read more at Suite101: Mormonism and Atheism | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/mormonism-and-atheism-a297338#ixzz1yY6B1gGG

^huh?

Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 20, 2012, 10:48:55 PM
Leaning only on mankind's finite understanding of the universe seems foolish to me, when science can't even prove how we got here. For some of you that's all you need, but as a historian, there is a thread of spirituality that runs through mankind from the beginning. Why? Why would a evolving being come down out of the trees and wake up one day and say, 'hey, you know what? There is this being called God and he left us with a set of rules to follow... Did this happen to Neanderthal? Cro-Magnon? Neandertalensis? Homo sapiens?  Homo erectus?  Homo habilis? Australopithecus? or perhaps Ardipithicus radius, who according to science shared 98% of our genes. 

You are ignoring religious history. Religions evolved over time as well. First out of superstition: I walked around this tree and it started raining. If I want it to continue raining, I must regularly walk around this tree. We killed a young girl or a lamb or a cow on the steps of the pyramid last year and we had a great harvest, so that works. If we look at how people respond to religion, it is fairly clear how it could have developed in the absence of an actual divine being. Anyone with young children should realize this. You tell your kids to be good and you will get them ice cream, you tell them to be very good and keep their room clean all December and Santa will bring them a bunch of gifts. You tell people that if they are very good their whole life and follow the rules you have laid out and they will be rewarded with <nirvana, eternity, virgins, etc etc>. Whether you believe or not, you should at least be able to acknowledge that religion is a wonderfully convenient means of control. What's to say our species is unique in believing in the divine. How do we know dogs don't think thunder is when the sky god is angry, or that bone they found was a gift from the god of ground bones. The fact that we thought it up is not a proof of its truth. Unless, Bigfoot and the Nessie are real as well.

The problem atheists, agnostics, and deists have is the idea of faith (blind faith), the biggest cop-out and most severe red flag of any religion. Faith does not allow for rational, thoughtful dialogue on the subject. Faith says you can't know, so you have to take our word for it, because we are in a special position of privilege to receive information from on high. Faith is a tool that demands obedience without critical thought. Most people that call themselves atheists or agnostics (and a lot of people that call themselves religious) are, in fact, just skeptical of the dogmas they have available to them. They don't claim to be 100% sure that there is no God, they just admit that they don't know and are not comfortable proclaiming the existence of a god of which they have no proof. I think more dangerous is the religious person that is 100% sure of something they have literally no proof of, and they are willing to die or do all many of ill-conceived things because of it. An advanced species can do without that.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 20, 2012, 10:48:55 PM
The Tibetan account of the first bardo after death shows striking parallels with the near-death experiences of people who have died, experienced themselves floating out of their bodies, having what appears to be real afterlife events, and then being revived.

Humans have wonderful imaginations. Near-death means not dead.

People have these same types of sensations on drugs. Strange things happen when the brain is not behaving properly. To attribute these feelings to experiences of the afterlife is to cheapen the phenomenon of an afterlife, if it exists, or to be guilty of an extremely egotistical form of hubris (namely, the idea that you are so important that you must live forever).

Most people I know who call themselves agnostics are actually atheists as well, but afraid to label themselves as such (or are uncomfortable with it, or don't understand what "atheist" means).

Quote from: Adam W on June 22, 2012, 04:34:23 PM
Most people I know who call themselves agnostics are actually atheists as well, but afraid to label themselves as such (or are uncomfortable with it, or don't understand what "atheist" means).

^huh?

Quote from: Adam W on June 22, 2012, 04:34:23 PM
Most people I know who call themselves agnostics are actually atheists as well, but afraid to label themselves as such (or are uncomfortable with it, or don't understand what "atheist" means).

Thankfully, this is the 21st century and all they really have to do is Google it. Read the many definitions and realize what they actually are.  However, I agree that there is some cross over between agnostic and atheist. Depending on who's definition you wish to use.

In any case, I often think that George Lucas had the answer in Star Wars.  Basic good and evil.  Dark and Light. When enough believe in the Light, the good wins.  When they don't, well .... Hell on Earth?

The beauty of person freedom.  We can believe in the Force, God and everything in between.

many believe what they were told to believe (were raised to believe). I have found few that question what they have been told to believe. many that have questioned have come out believing differently.  Though, some that questioned and maintained what they were raised to believe came out with a stronger faith than they went in with as they had a better understanding than they went in with. Faith is the core of religion. But too many don't really know what they are saying they believe in when they say they believe and when asked cannnot tell me. 

I do not hold with the traditional religious idolgy.  Man is a very conceited race.  We are extremely involved with our own self importance.  When we look at religions through history we can see that they were born from questions and man's self importance: Why does something happen (i.e. how the sun crosses the sky during the day?) and how important are we in the greater scheme of things.  I have not found that the current religions differ.  Religions even now answer questions that we do not have answers to (i.e. how did the world come to be?) and make man be of some greater importance (i.e. God created us in his own image) than just existing in this universe as all other things that excist.  We as people like the comforts of knowledge and dislike the unknown.  We also like feeling important.  This has not changed through the ages and likely will never change. 

Is an Atheist or a Pagan who goes about life doing "right" for the simple reason that it is right any better or worse then the believer that does it because it is decreed by a monotheistic religion? In my opinion, no. although I am biast as I fit into that group.

To say that ALL Atheists attack Christianity is as unfair as to say that all Christians attack non-believers, or that all Muslims are terrorists.  ALL of any group is not any one negitive thing.  I have Christian  friends who respect my beliefs and me as a person without trying to convert me or condemn me.  Wars have been fought through the ages over nothing more than religious differences.  Respect for other people's belief systems, so long as they are positive systems, would do wonders.  An Ahteist that lives a positive lifestyle deserves the same respect as any other.  Not understanding someone's beliefs is not reason for condeming it.

Quote from: ben says on June 22, 2012, 01:48:24 PM
So how/why did you pick Christianity? 99.99% sure because you were born into it.

You would be pretty correct in that I was raised in a Christian 'BaptisMethoNazerIndependent' family, but we were NEVER told what to think. My dad, a former big band musician, took a hobby job directing choirs. At an early age I was hiking jungle trails on a ranch my dad partnered with in Brasil. I was exposed to many beliefs, from pagan, native and even old world Catholic. When I left home with my older sister for California at age 14, Long hair blowing back in the breezy windows of the micro-bus, I ended up in a commune in Dunlap, CA.. There I followed Wicca for some time, then got involved with a Mormon Girl and attended church with her, finally landing in Long Beach with an actress girl friend who was also Christian. Still a die hard hippie, I went to work for Dan Curtis Productions (think Dark Shadows) then Universal (I'd like to kill Benji)... till I got sick of it and headed back to Jacksonville with my new Spanish wife who was once a Franciscan Nun. I have read much of the Wicca material, Bhagavad Gita, Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants, Mary Baker Eddy, Edgar Casey, as well as doctrinal books from many religions. This is why you might see me quote Buddha, Mohammad, Gandhi, Krishna and of course Jesus. I think you'd have a hard time putting my beliefs in a tidy little box. While I am solidly Christian today, I have no problem learning bit's of wisdom from all corners, including my Atheist friends. When we open our minds, the world becomes a better place.

Hope this answers your question.  ;)

Quote from: PeeJayEss on June 22, 2012, 03:34:54 PM
Humans have wonderful imaginations. Near-death means not dead.

People have these same types of sensations on drugs. Strange things happen when the brain is not behaving properly. To attribute these feelings to experiences of the afterlife is to cheapen the phenomenon of an afterlife, if it exists, or to be guilty of an extremely egotistical form of hubris (namely, the idea that you are so important that you must live forever).

Yeah, I understand the drug part, my sister will take an oath that I was at the Jethro Tull concert in Fresno, and I remember ........................

BTW, 'near death' doesn't mean not dead, it is a rather loose term that describes people that are pronounced clinically dead, have no detectable brain/heart activity and are revived. In almost all of these cases the come back describing watching doctors or friends hover about their body... That sort of goes back to Plato when he asked 'Are you a body, or do you posses a body?

It is easy to sling insults when faced with idology different than our own. 
I do not understand how someone can so easily accept many of the religious tenets out there as fact but it is not my place to insult their beliefs simply because it is different from what I hold to be "true."  Now, when he/she starts insulting me... the gloves come off... until then, I do find the intricasies of religions to be facinating...

Quote from: strider on June 22, 2012, 09:43:54 PM

Quote from: Adam W on June 22, 2012, 04:34:23 PM
Most people I know who call themselves agnostics are actually atheists as well, but afraid to label themselves as such (or are uncomfortable with it, or don't understand what "atheist" means).

Thankfully, this is the 21st century and all they really have to do is Google it. Read the many definitions and realize what they actually are.  However, I agree that there is some cross over between agnostic and atheist. Depending on who's definition you wish to use.

In any case, I often think that George Lucas had the answer in Star Wars.  Basic good and evil.  Dark and Light. When enough believe in the Light, the good wins.  When they don't, well .... Hell on Earth?

The beauty of person freedom.  We can believe in the Force, God and everything in between.

I don't claim to know 100% that god doesn't exist. I don't know if science will ever be able to prove the answer one way or another. I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

What I do know, however, is that I don't believe in god. I don't think I ever really did and I certainly can remember as far back as 8 years old (in CCD class in 1980), trying to convince myself that god must exist and knowing I didn't believe it.

So I'm an athiest, as I don't believe in god. I suppose I'm also 'agnostic' as I can't claim to know there is no god. But I'm pretty sure there isn't. And I certainly don't think there is.

Prominent atheist blogger converts to Catholicism
Leah Libresco wrote column for website Patheos
Author: By Dan Merica
Published On: Jun 22 2012 11:49:59 AM EDT  Updated On: Jun 22 2012 06:03:01 PM EDT
Religion generic

Juan Medina / Reuters
(CNN) -

She went from atheist to Catholic in just over 1,000 words.

Leah Libresco, who'd been a prominent atheist blogger for the religion website Patheos, announced on her blog this week that after years of debating many "smart Christians," she has decided to become one herself, and that she has begun the process of converting to Catholicism.

Libresco, who had long blogged under the banner "Unequally Yoked: A geeky atheist picks fights with her Catholic boyfriend," said that at the heart of her decision were questions of morality and how one finds a moral compass.

"I had one thing that I was most certain of, which is that morality is something we have a duty to," Libresco told CNN in an interview this week, a small cross dangling from her neck. "And it is external from us. And when push came to shove, that is the belief I wouldn't let go of. And that is something I can't prove."

According to a Patheos post she wrote on Monday, entitled "This is my last post for the Patheos Atheist Portal," she began to see parts of Christianity and Catholicism that fit her moral system. Though she now identifies as a Catholic, Libresco questions certain aspects of Catholicism, including the church's positions on homosexuality, contraception and some aspects of religious liberty.

"There was one religion that seemed like the most promising way to reach back to that living Truth," Libresco wrote about Catholicism in her conversion announcement post, which has been shared over 18,000 times on Facebook. "I asked my friend what he suggests we do now, and we prayed the night office of the Liturgy of the Hours together."

At the end of the post, Libresco announces that she is in a Rights of Christian Initiation of Adults class and is preparing for baptism. She will continue to blog for Patheos, but under the banner, "A geeky convert picks fights in good faith."

According to Dan Welch, director of marketing for Patheos, Libresco's post has received around 150,000 page views so far.

"Leah's blog has gotten steadily more popular since she arrived at Patheos, but a typical post on her blog is probably closer to the range of 5,000 page views," Welch wrote in an email. "Even now, a few days later, her blog is probably getting 20-30 times its normal traffic."

Libresco's announcement has left some atheists scratching their heads.

"I think atheists were surprised that she went with Catholicism, which seems like a very specific choice," Hemant Mehta, an atheist blogger at Patheos, told CNN. "I have a hard time believing how someone could jump from I don't believe in God to a very specific church and a very specific God."

Mehta says that Libresco's conversion is a "one-off thing" and not something that signals any trend in atheism. "The trends are very clear, the conversions from Catholicism to atheism are much more likely to happen than the other way around," he said.

But while atheists were puzzled by the conversion, others commended Libresco.

"I know I've prayed for her conversion several times, always thinking she would make a great Catholic," wrote Brandon Vogt, a Catholic blogger. "And with this news, it looks like that will happen. Today heaven is roaring with joy."

Thomas L. McDonald, a Catholic Patheos blogger, welcomed Libresco to the fold: "Welcome. I know this was hard, and will continue to be so. Don't worry if the Catholics make it as for difficult for you as the atheists. We only do it to people we love."

Libresco says one of the most common questions she has received is how she'll deal with atheists now.

"The great thing about a lot of the atheist and skeptic community is that people talk more critically about ideas and want to see proof provided," Libresco said. "That kind of analytical thinking is completely useful and the Catholic Church doesn't need to and should not be afraid of because if you've got the facts on your side, you hope they win."

Libresco is just switching the side she thinks the facts are on.

This morning I read the Bauerline article about the dinosaurs being taken into the First Baptist Church for a week of display and perhaps instruction to about 1,500 children.  The objective, as I recall, is to convey to the children that dinosaurs and humans existed on earth at the same time, and that the great biblical flood was the cause of the demise of the dinosaur.

I wonder if the intention of the church officials is to convey this information as being a highly probable truth of history or if they are conveying it to children as myth, much as one would do with many of the stories and folktales created over the past few thousand years, so that children's imagination can journey to far away lands and times.  I wonder what good or harm is conveyed to children if the entire display is to suggest that it is true that the dinosaur did exist simultaneously with humans, and that the flood was the cause of the demise of the dinosaur. 

If one purpose of adults is to teach truth to children, and not lies or distortions projected as truth by some religion, so that the children might have enhanced abilities to create within their minds an honest and truthful picture of the world in which they live, so that they might engage it successfully without the delay of decades of attempts to recover from the distortions of the religions, one might wonder about the ultimate consequences of such teachings.

But perhaps the displays and instructions are only to convey stories and  myths for enjoyment, for the exercise of the imagination.  I hope so.     

I have a question for an atheist

If God does not exist, explain the term "Adam's Apple"

All I'm doing is asking a question, not criticizing, so if you're planning on biting my head off, save your fangs and keep your panties on.

Tamara-B: Forgive me for sounding ignorant, but how does a culture naming a part of the body after the first human in a mythical story need more explanation?

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 09, 2012, 12:21:31 PM
I have a question for an atheist

If God does not exist, explain the term "Adam's Apple"

All I'm doing is asking a question, not criticizing, so if you're planning on biting my head off, save your fangs and keep your panties on.

NOT trying to bite your head off/be an ass...but this post is a joke, right?

Quote from: vince on July 09, 2012, 12:36:44 PM
Tamara-B: Forgive me for sounding ignorant, but how does a culture naming a part of the body after the first human in a mythical story need more explanation?

I'm just wondering what atheists call that part of the body. How do they explain the name? You don't sound ignorant to me

Quote from: ben says on July 09, 2012, 12:55:30 PM

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 09, 2012, 12:21:31 PM
I have a question for an atheist

If God does not exist, explain the term "Adam's Apple"

All I'm doing is asking a question, not criticizing, so if you're planning on biting my head off, save your fangs and keep your panties on.

NOT trying to bite your head off/be an ass...but this post is a joke, right?

My career aspirations don't involve being a comic, so no this post is not a joke.

Well, modern medicine calls it: Laryngeal prominence

I call it an Adam's Apple because that is what I was taught to call it.

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 09, 2012, 01:02:44 PM

Quote from: ben says on July 09, 2012, 12:55:30 PM

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 09, 2012, 12:21:31 PM
I have a question for an atheist

If God does not exist, explain the term "Adam's Apple"

All I'm doing is asking a question, not criticizing, so if you're planning on biting my head off, save your fangs and keep your panties on.

NOT trying to bite your head off/be an ass...but this post is a joke, right?

My career aspirations don't involve being a comic, so no this post is not a joke.

Let me put it this way: what exactly are you getting at? That because the laryngeal prominence is called an Adam's Apple, god is real?

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 09, 2012, 12:56:58 PM

Quote from: vince on July 09, 2012, 12:36:44 PM
Tamara-B: Forgive me for sounding ignorant, but how does a culture naming a part of the body after the first human in a mythical story need more explanation?

I'm just wondering what atheists call that part of the body. How do they explain the name? You don't sound ignorant to me

Never thought of it like that.  I wonder what Non-Roman god believers call the planets. 

Quote from: vince on July 09, 2012, 12:36:44 PM
Tamara-B: Forgive me for sounding ignorant, but how does a culture naming a part of the body after the first human in a mythical story need more explanation?

Is it a myth? How do  you know? What proofs do you offer besides 'disbelief?'

On one side, we had a story, legend or fable that is thousands of years old, on the other a 21St Century guy claiming to know the story is false. Was 'Adam' the first man able to write? Did one of his children write his story?

Troy was a myth, oops, no is wasn't. Greek fire was a myth, oops, no it wasn't. The coin that saved a Confederate officer from a bullet was a myth, uh? Nope.

Quote from: ben says on July 09, 2012, 01:18:47 PM

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 09, 2012, 01:02:44 PM

Quote from: ben says on July 09, 2012, 12:55:30 PM

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 09, 2012, 12:21:31 PM
I have a question for an atheist

If God does not exist, explain the term "Adam's Apple"

All I'm doing is asking a question, not criticizing, so if you're planning on biting my head off, save your fangs and keep your panties on.

NOT trying to bite your head off/be an ass...but this post is a joke, right?

My career aspirations don't involve being a comic, so no this post is not a joke.

Let me put it this way: what exactly are you getting at? That because the laryngeal prominence is called an Adam's Apple, god is real?

I feel God is real because that's my belief

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 09, 2012, 07:26:45 PM
I feel God is real because that's my belief

Well ok then.  Why not just say that, instead of some weird semantic game?  This is what I never understand from a lot of believers.  They try and convince others with pseudo-science or tricks (see Kirk Cameron's banana).  If you believe, and that is enough for you then fantastic.  Nothing should shake that.  I don't get why they feel they have to prove it to others with games or logic twists.  If the "word" or whatever is strong enough for you to believe then so be it.  Just say that. 

One can "feel" and "believe" but one can’t truly ever know for sure either way. Agnostic has to do with knowledge and atheism has to do with belief. You can surely be an agnostic Christian or agnostic any other religion for that matter. There are many agnostic Christians in the world. They believe/feel there is a god but are intelligent enough to know that they can’t possibly know for a fact, thus making them agnostic Christians. I personally feel that if you can’t know 100% for sure that there is/isn't a god, then it's kind of silly to "believe" there is one. Why not "believe" in Santa Claus? Is Santa any sillier than a supposed all knowing, all seeing sky man that watches and judges everything you do? Is believing in the tooth fairy any more silly than believing in some god that supposedly controls everything, including wars, famine, birth defects, crime, natural disasters etc. etc.? Why is YOUR god the ONLY god? If you grew up never hearing of the words god/Jesus/bible, do you really think you would just come to your own conclusion that there must be some old guy in the clouds watching you and you should appease him? Why do so many people think that the Christian bible is the only bible that matters? Why are there so many religions in the world? Why does Tom Cruise believe that some aliens living inside a volcano created everything? Is Tom Cruise any more/less silly than someone quoting the Christian bible? What about the Mormons? Joseph Smith claimed (not very long ago mind you) that he walked out into the woods and god and Jesus told him what to write down on some mystical stones that he put into a hat and translated from some other language. Talk about silly...

What about the following? (taken from "why can’t I own a Canadian")

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Now I know what you’re going to say...you’re going to say that the Old Testament doesn't matter. Well according to Matthew 5:17 says that it does matter. Besides, what kind of religion just up and says "oh, that crazy stuff? Just forget about that nonsense"?

What about the fact that in the Christian bible, Satan kills less than 10 people and god kills over 2 million?

There are many contradictions in the bible...here are some

Should we kill?

    Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
    Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."

    Vs.
    Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
    I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
    I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
    Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
    Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."

   
http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=contra

God and all that is a timeless topic and will never go away but I must say...if you believe in an all-powerful cloud dwelling being that is judging you, you should also believe in Santa, unicorns, and the tooth fairy for starters. God, Jesus and most religions are just fairy tales for adults to help them cope in their lives. I wouldn't have a problem with that except religion worldwide does more harm than good.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” - Richard Dawkins

...a little Neil deGrasse Tyson for good measure...

(http://i.imgur.com/X3zLB.jpg)

back to Ron's point....somehow First Baptist is going to show kids dinosaur bones and then teach that they are only thousands of years old (vs. miillions)...never mind that whole carbon dating thing....it doesn't fit the creationism storyline.

Beautiful Nomeus. 

well thanks ron :)

Quote from: Bridges on July 09, 2012, 07:51:56 PM

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 09, 2012, 07:26:45 PM
I feel God is real because that's my belief

Well ok then.  Why not just say that, instead of some weird semantic game?  This is what I never understand from a lot of believers.  They try and convince others with pseudo-science or tricks (see Kirk Cameron's banana).  If you believe, and that is enough for you then fantastic.  Nothing should shake that.  I don't get why they feel they have to prove it to others with games or logic twists.  If the "word" or whatever is strong enough for you to believe then so be it.  Just say that.

"Why not just say that?"

It's too bad you're not the mouth police and I can say what I please. Tricks? All I did was ask about the term "Adam's apple" Save your fangs!

Tamara-B - things get named what they get named... some are common names as the "Adams apple" and some are not.... when they are from religions they do not prove the existence of any god or gods... Do you have your own calendar that is not based on the Greek & Roman gods and mythology? Or based on your logic does the fact that our calendar is based on those gods prove that they in fact exist? 
January -- Janus's month: Janus is the Roman god of gates and doorways, depicted with two faces looking in opposite directions. His festival month is January.
February -- month of Februa: Februa is the Roman festival of purification, held on February fifteenth. It is possibly of Sabine origin.
March -- Mars' month: Mars is the Roman god of war.
April -- Aphrodite's month: Aphrodite is the Greek goddess of love and beauty.
May -- Maia's month: Maia (meaning "the great one") is the Italic goddess of spring, the daughter of Faunus, and wife of Vulcan.
June -- Juno's month: Juno is the principle goddess of the Roman Pantheon. She is the goddess of marriage and the well-being of women. She is the wife and sister of Jupiter.

I could go on - but I think you get the point - often a name is a name. A NAME is not proof of existence of a Deity.

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 09, 2012, 10:45:52 PM

Quote from: Bridges on July 09, 2012, 07:51:56 PM

Quote from: Tamara-B on July 09, 2012, 07:26:45 PM
I feel God is real because that's my belief

Well ok then.  Why not just say that, instead of some weird semantic game?  This is what I never understand from a lot of believers.  They try and convince others with pseudo-science or tricks (see Kirk Cameron's banana).  If you believe, and that is enough for you then fantastic.  Nothing should shake that.  I don't get why they feel they have to prove it to others with games or logic twists.  If the "word" or whatever is strong enough for you to believe then so be it.  Just say that.

"Why not just say that?"

It's too bad you're not the mouth police and I can say what I please. Tricks? All I did was ask about the term "Adam's apple" Save your fangs!

haha.  There's no vitriol in my words.  Don't feel so attacked.  I'm not telling you what you can and can't say.  I was only pointing out that if you're argument for god's existence is that you believe in him/her, then its stronger for you to stick with that. 

Unless, I totally misread everything, and you really were looking for the history of the phrase Adam's Apple and its definition.  Then I'm sorry for mentioning god, when I should have mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_apple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_apple)

Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 09, 2012, 05:00:09 PM
Is it a myth? How do  you know? What proofs do you offer besides 'disbelief?'

On one side, we had a story, legend or fable that is thousands of years old, on the other a 21St Century guy claiming to know the story is false. Was 'Adam' the first man able to write? Did one of his children write his story?

Troy was a myth, oops, no is wasn't. Greek fire was a myth, oops, no it wasn't. The coin that saved a Confederate officer from a bullet was a myth, uh? Nope.

Disbelief would simply be a belief that something is not true. So if it were a belief without proof, then you certainly would have a point. Of course, your point would only be that his disbelief is just as ridiculous/baseless as your belief. However, your premise is false because we do have reasons to believe that the Adam & Eve account is simply a parable instead of historical fact (though even as a parable, the lesson to "do as I say without any justification whatsoever no matter how arbitrary the activity or I will punish you eternally" is not exactly an eloquent one). The Bible is meant as guidance, not history. You cheapen your religion and your argument for it when you argue that these stories are anything otherwise.
We know creation in six days is not literal. Whether divine planning went into it is a whole different argument, but we know it did not happen in 6 days of the Earth's rotation (In fact, the day as we have it defined wouldn't have existed for God if he was creating things). The creation shows a clearly primitive understanding of the cosmos. Surely, if the story was passed directly from God, he would have gotten it correct:
Light and dark come on the first day (forget that "dark" isn't a thing), and the Universe was already water-filled?!?.
God separated the water into sky and Earth (because the writers thought outer space was water-filled.
God created the land and seas, and then plants (before the sun or animals, both of which are necessary).
God created the sun, moon, stars, all giving off light (even though light was created on day one, and the moon doesn't give off light).
God creates animals for air and sea
God creates land animals - apparently animals were not needed for the propagation of flowering plants.
God takes a nap - why? Oh, to conveniently explain why we don't do stuff one day out of the week.

Okay, so if you believe that literally, you can't be reasoned with, so you might as well stop reading (or just make up the rest as you see fit).

Now, Adama and Eve don't work because a single pair of common ancestors don't work for all humans. First, in rich dummy terms, have you seen what inbreeding can do?!
What we can do is trace single genes back to common ancestors. This has been done. Because we do not all have the same genes, if you take the group of humans alive today that share a specific gene, you can travel up their family tree to find a common ancestor. You can even figure out the sex in some cases. You do this for every gene, and you get a whole bunch of different common ancestors. Some of them are modern humans, some of them are from creatures that are long gone, and some of from animals that we broke off from millions of years ago (basically, if you go back far enough, you can see where our family tree coalesces with sharks. The genes in human DNA are not even unique to humans. We share so many traits with other animals, some very like us (monkeys), and some not (dogs, bears, fish, etc etc).
You simply cannot boil down all our DNA and somehow get it back to a single couple of modern humans. It is theorized that the smallest the modern human population may have been as low as 2000-3000, with most estimates around 10,000-15,000 (coincident with the supereruption of the Tuba volcano in Indo).

Also, there is a talking lizard. This is not an argument against the religion, simply against Ock's indignation that it be called a myth. It is not a piece of documentary work and it was never intended as such. It may be a parable, but it is fairly common to call a human or world genesis story that is patently and provably false a "Creation myth," so I don't understand your taking issue with that characterization.

Troy was not a myth, but does that mean you believe Achilles was part-god, or that Apollo sent a plague against the Greeks for dishonoring him?

Quote from: officerk on July 10, 2012, 03:53:08 AM
Tamara-B - things get named what they get named... some are common names as the "Adams apple" and some are not.... when they are from religions they do not prove the existence of any god or gods... Do you have your own calendar that is not based on the Greek & Roman gods and mythology? Or based on your logic does the fact that our calendar is based on those gods prove that they in fact exist? 
January -- Janus's month: Janus is the Roman god of gates and doorways, depicted with two faces looking in opposite directions. His festival month is January.
February -- month of Februa: Februa is the Roman festival of purification, held on February fifteenth. It is possibly of Sabine origin.
March -- Mars' month: Mars is the Roman god of war.
April -- Aphrodite's month: Aphrodite is the Greek goddess of love and beauty.
May -- Maia's month: Maia (meaning "the great one") is the Italic goddess of spring, the daughter of Faunus, and wife of Vulcan.
June -- Juno's month: Juno is the principle goddess of the Roman Pantheon. She is the goddess of marriage and the well-being of women. She is the wife and sister of Jupiter.

I could go on - but I think you get the point - often a name is a name. A NAME is not proof of existence of a Deity.

Thanks, officerk! I was struggling to think of a way to respond to Tamara-B without being completely insulting (I couldn't and, frankly, didn't want to). However, you handled that commendably.

I'm a little late to this rodeo, but I think you are misinterpreting the Bible to some extent from all the posts I've read. There are often many layers of meaning within the text, and each book was written with certain contexts that need to be considered to gain a proper understanding of its meaning. Regarding the creation story in Genesis, I think you need to consider a few things before you completely write it off. First, consider the fact that according to the first creation story in Genesis (there are two creation accounts in Genesis) the whole of creation was made in seven days, but the sun and moon are not created until the fourth day. Obviously, you cannot have a day without the sun rising and setting. That should indicate right away that this is not a literal play-by-play of the facts of creation. It is a vehicle by which certain truths are communicated. For instance, by this account we learn that God is eternal, He created us, and that man holds a special place among creation as evidenced by our free will and intellect.

Speaking of the creation of men, the story of Adam and Eve is not disproved by science because humanity is not completely defined by scientifically observable terms. Man is body and soul, and that soul is a rational soul that separates man from other animals. That's why in the second creation story in Genesis God first forms man out of clay (that is He created a body), but man is not complete until God breathes into him (imparts man with a soul). Among all the visible creation, man possesses a unique self-awareness that allows him to give himself to others and to God. The important lesson here is that at some distinct point in time humans stopped being simply the animal, Homo Sapiens, and became a man with a rational soul. Again that is something that we cannot observe scientifically, so science can neither prove or disprove in this case.

Back to the larger point, we can have a partial knowledge of God in the observable world and by reason, but He goes beyond the bounds of what is visible. He is infinite. That means we can provide evidence that points to His existence. However, in this life we can neither definitively prove nor disprove His existence. That means that it is going to come down to a matter of faith. You can put your faith in God, but it is possible to put faith in other things such as a science. I would posit that it is at least as much if not a greater leap of faith to wholly place your trust in science given how often we find that what we once thought was true actually turned out to be bunk. I pray that one day each of you may have the gift of faith in God.

P.S. - Here's an scientific theory by one of the greatest minds ever that has been disproved by later discoveries just to illustrate what I'm saying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe)

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on July 10, 2012, 12:01:06 PM
I'm a little late to this rodeo, but I think you are misinterpreting the Bible to some extent from all the posts I've read. There are often many layers of meaning within the text, and each book was written with certain contexts that need to be considered to gain a proper understanding of its meaning. Regarding the creation story in Genesis, I think you need to consider a few things before you completely write it off. First, consider the fact that according to the first creation story in Genesis (there are two creation accounts in Genesis) the whole of creation was made in seven days, but the sun and moon are not created until the fourth day. Obviously, you cannot have a day without the sun rising and setting. That should indicate right away that this is not a literal play-by-play of the facts of creation. It is a vehicle by which certain truths are communicated. For instance, by this account we learn that God is eternal, He created us, and that man holds a special place among creation as evidenced by our free will and intellect.

Ok, so the bible shouldn't be taken literally.  In that case, I love the bible.  It has fantastic stories and much like many works of literature, it can enlighten us into who we are and what we truly believe through self-reflection and story telling. 

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on July 10, 2012, 12:01:06 PMSpeaking of the creation of men, the story of Adam and Eve is not disproved by science because humanity is not completely defined by scientifically observable terms. Man is body and soul, and that soul is a rational soul that separates man from other animals. That's why in the second creation story in Genesis God first forms man out of clay (that is He created a body), but man is not complete until God breathes into him (imparts man with a soul). Among all the visible creation, man possesses a unique self-awareness that allows him to give himself to others and to God. The important lesson here is that at some distinct point in time humans stopped being simply the animal, Homo Sapiens, and became a man with a rational soul. Again that is something that we cannot observe scientifically, so science can neither prove or disprove in this case.

I believe you have a few holes in this theory here.  You can't just say something is so, and then because you say it is so, create arguments for and against it.  The "soul" can be debated in another very lengthy discussion.  Man is body and consciousness.  But so is a dog.  There are a few things that separate the human species from animals, but I'm not sure it's the existence of a soul or a rational soul. 

What do you mean by soul or rational soul?  I would need to know what you mean before I could talk further on it.  But just saying "humans have a soul, science can't prove the existence of a soul, therefore there is a god who gave us a soul" isn't a real argument.

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on July 10, 2012, 12:01:06 PMBack to the larger point, we can have a partial knowledge of God in the observable world and by reason, but He goes beyond the bounds of what is visible. He is infinite. That means we can provide evidence that points to His existence. However, in this life we can neither definitively prove nor disprove His existence. That means that it is going to come down to a matter of faith. You can put your faith in God, but it is possible to put faith in other things such as a science. I would posit that it is at least as much if not a greater leap of faith to wholly place your trust in science given how often we find that what we once thought was true actually turned out to be bunk. I pray that one day each of you may have the gift of faith in God.

P.S. - Here's an scientific theory by one of the greatest minds ever that has been disproved by later discoveries just to illustrate what I'm saying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe)

This is where I draw issue with a lot of religious arguments.  It's the comparison of god to science as if they are both static things.  Science is not a thing.  It is a process.  An ever evolving flow and collection of knowledge.  It is a way of testing things and retesting them, and then challenging them and testing them again until we get to the point of almost, if not exact, understanding of them.  Science tests things, but science itself is not a thing.

I think you are misreading me slightly. First off, remember the Bible is a collection of books, and each has its own literary style, author, and so on. It's incorrect to say that you cannot take any of it literally because there are many books of that are indeed historical accounts. You just have to have a contextual awareness as you read, and you have to consider the specific contexts of the texts as well as the larger context of how each part fits into the whole of salvation history. It's actually very deep which is why people can devote their whole life to bible study.

Secondly, regarding souls let me clarify. There is a difference in a rational soul that is present in humans and a sensitive soul which is present in other animals. Sensitive souls are capable of life, growth, and feeling, and they may even have a mind that is capable of problem solving and so on. However, a human rational soul goes beyond just those things because we have an inner-most being that is self-aware and self-possessing. For example, we have a have a meta-cognitive ability to reflect on our weaknesses and make a decision to improve certain aspects of our life. It is why people can appreciate qualities like beauty and virtue whereas a chimpanzee or octopus cannot despite possessing great intelligence. It is why we are able to freely give ourselves to God or to refuse Him.

And again the existence of a soul is not scientifically quantifiable. It really comes down to a matter of what you place your faith in: your own finite power to reason or God. So I'm not trying to use the existence of a soul to prove the existence of God; I'm saying that faith in God opens you up to the existence of a soul and a whole of host of other revealed truths. Mainly, I was trying to clear up some misconceptions associated with Christian teaching.

Now the reason I bring up science in this conversation is because a lot of people trust in the use the scientific method to disprove the existence of God, but the tool does not fit the task because God lies largely outside the scope of what can be observed or quantified and because it is easy to misinterpret what we observe (see static universe model, flat earth, etc.). Science is not the be-all, end-all. It is a process that can help us search for some truths but not others. Science cannot tell us why a landscape is beautiful or why a symphony is moving because things like beauty and emotion likewise cannot be quantified or even completely defined. Why would we assume that science and reason alone is the right tool to evaluate something as infinite as God?

I would like to also bring up something I learned it in Anthropology 101 (not necessarily directed at Bridges :) just for the general good). When learning about a culture you should try to understand it from the insider's perspective. I often hear people try to use the Bible to disprove this or that about Christianity, but their arguments are often built on misinformation. Sometimes just reading a verse or two does not give you the whole picture. Before making a final judgement I would recommend to anyone to really try to keep an open mind and actually take the time to research what people believe and why. That way even if you reject what you find you have solid basis for your own belief. God bless.

http://www.psmag.com/culture-society/do-atheists-have-deathbed-conversions-43291/

QuoteDo Atheists Have Deathbed Conversions?

Two sets of researchers ask whether nonbelievers turn toward God after contemplating death.

July 10, 2012• By Tom Jacobs •

Are there atheists in foxholes? That timeless question (the literal answer to which is yes) is a shorthand way of asking whether, when confronted by their own mortality, even nonbelievers’ thoughts turn to God.

Research published earlier this year tentatively concluded that they do. But a new study, conducted by scholars from three countries, reports that death-related thoughts lead us to reaffirm whatever belief system gives our lives meaningâ€"and for atheists, that’s something other than religious faith.

“Our tentative conclusion is that even nonreligious people are tempted toward religious belief, if only implicitly, in the face of death,” writes Oxford University psychologist Jonathan Jong. He is lead author of a paper entitled “Foxhole Athiesm, Revisited,” published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology.

“The psychological comforts of religion do not appear to be of universal necessity,” counters University of Missouri psychologist Kenneth Vail. He’s the lead author of the paper “Exploring the Existential Function of Religion,” published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Both papers provide evidence that reminders of death increase the religiosity of believers. This supports one of the basic tenets of Terror Management Theory, a school of thought built on the insights of the late anthropologist Ernest Becker.

According to TMT, a basic function of religion is to provide a buffer against death-related anxiety. It does this, primarily, by promising believers an ongoing existence that transcends earthly mortality. So it’s no surprise that both sets of researchers found a link between thoughts of mortality and increased devotion.

In the first of three experiments Vail describes, death reminders enhanced the religiosity of both Christians and Muslims. Christians were more likely to express belief in Jesus and deny the divinity of Allah and Buddha; conversely, Muslims were more likely to express belief in Allah and deny the divinity of Jesus and Buddha. (Buddhists do not, however, claim divinity for Buddha, and Islam’s Allah is usually seen as the same monotheistic God worshiped by Christians and Jews.)

Similarly, Jong found that when reminded with death, “participants explicitly defended their own religious world view, such that self-described Christians were more confident that supernatural religious entities exist.”

But when it came to nonreligious people, Jong found a disconnect between conscious beliefs and unconscious ones. Like the believers, the nonreligious responded to death reminders by strengthening their commitment to their world viewâ€"in their case, the firm belief there’s no such thing as supernatural entities.

But using an implicit association test, he found that after thinking about death, nonbelievers “wavered from their disbelief.” Specifically, 71 students from the University of Otago in New Zealand were presented with a series of 20 nouns, which they were instructed to categorize as “real” or “imaginary” as quickly as possible.

Jong reports that “while believers strengthened their beliefs, non-believers wavered from their disbelief” after thinking about their own mortality. Specifically, they were slower to label such concepts as “God” and “heaven” as imaginary.

In other words, when death was on their minds, “believers more readily judged religious concepts as real,” he writes, “while non-believers found it more difficult to judge religious concepts as imaginary.”

While respectful of Jong, Vail takes issue with his methodology; he isn’t convinced a less-rapid response time necessarily denotes increased doubt. Furthermore, he notes that all nonbelievers are not created equal.

His research, conducted with Jamie Arndt of  the University of Missouri and Abdolhossein Abdollahi of the University of Limerick, Ireland and Islamic Azau University in Iran, distinguished between atheists and agnostics, and found they reacted to death reminders quite differently.

Specifically, in one experiment, death reminders “motivated agnostics to increase their religiosity, belief in a higher power, and their faith in God/Jesus, Buddha, and Allah.” Basically, they were more open to immortality-promising deities of any stripe.

But in a separate experiment, the notion of death did not increase atheists’ very low levels of religiosity or belief in a higher power.

In Vail’s view, this suggests people who strongly reject religious belief find other ways of dealing with “the psychological problem of death,” such as devoting themselves to some secular cause that will endure beyond their lifetimes.

So while the larger conclusions of the two papers “largely converge,” as Vail notes, they point to different answers regarding whether, say, Christopher Hitchens started to waver from his firm disbelief in his final days.

“Implicit religious belief is a difficult thing to sample,” Jong concedes, “and we hope that more work is done on this in different samples, including more militant atheists.”

Any volunteers?

I am not an Atheist.. I am Pagan. so perhaps I am not a good example here but them maybe I am..
With regards to the near-death question and the "any volunteers" invite thrown out there I can tell you that I have been in a harrowing situation where I thought I was going to die and I can tell you that I did not turn any gods of any kind.  I simply accepted that I was going to die.  Since I am now typing this, obviously, I did not.  But I did not turn to any Judeo-Christian God and start praying.  I was in a weather enduced auto accident, I simply took a deep breath, closed my eyes, relaxed, and waited for the Semi truck to hit me...  it did not...
I am secure in my beliefs. I know exactly what I believe.. perhaps if someone is not as secure in their beliefs then doubts happen and that is where the near-death changes come from - no matter which side they are on  - I have heard of Christians swearing off God on their death bed also...

Quote from: PeeJayEss on July 10, 2012, 10:59:28 AM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 09, 2012, 05:00:09 PM
Is it a myth? How do  you know? What proofs do you offer besides 'disbelief?'

On one side, we had a story, legend or fable that is thousands of years old, on the other a 21St Century guy claiming to know the story is false. Was 'Adam' the first man able to write? Did one of his children write his story?

Troy was a myth, oops, no is wasn't. Greek fire was a myth, oops, no it wasn't. The coin that saved a Confederate officer from a bullet was a myth, uh? Nope.

Disbelief would simply be a belief that something is not true. So if it were a belief without proof, then you certainly would have a point. Of course, your point would only be that his disbelief is just as ridiculous/baseless as your belief. However, your premise is false because we do have reasons...

So you rely on reasons to believe in whatever and I don't? To put a twist on my belief, I believe in a cosmos of amazing possibilities, want to stretch that to my max an American World War II veteran says that he saw a live “pterodactyl” in New Guinea in 1944. Does he mean the pterosaur that is said to have become extinct millions of years ago? Maybe so, we have 'reasons' to believe he saw what he saw. About 150 miles southeast of Bali, Indonesia, (June, 2008) a Britten-Norman Islander (airplane) nearly collided with what both the pilot and the co-pilot soon afterwards called a "pterodactyl." At an altitude of 6500 feet, the plane was put into a dive to avoid a collision. There are many more reasons to believe, what might at once seem silly to one may ring true to another, as you say, 'The Bible is meant as guidance,' is that a bad thing? As a history the Torah is used with amazing accuracy in the fields of archeology.

There is no indignation in my response, if you read it that way you misunderstand where I'm coming from. Do I believe in Creation? Yes, but I don't pretend to know, nor is it my job to figure out the who, what, when, where, why and how. I think a much greater extraterrestrial intelligence, directed the creation. That intelligence lives in what we might call the 4Th dimension, and trying to explain his actions away by saying it is literal, or figurative, doesn't effect what I believe.  If we learn tomorrow that the account in Genesis it exactly literally correct, I'm cool with that, if we learn that it happened over millions of years, ages, evolution, etc. then I'm cool with that too. I'm a Christian, I believe there is an afterlife and I also believe that great wisdom was given to mankind. Buddha said, 'If you think you heard a flower - it's a flower that you heard.' Who am I to argue because I didn't hear the flower?

(http://www.astrobio.net/albums/xsolar/acq.sized.jpg)
SETI'S radio telescope array is always pointed skyward in search of something, some tiny message to be decoded from another advanced civilization. We couldn't possibly be searching for God unaware could we?


(http://www.worldchanging.com/Voyager%20Golden%20Records_NASA.jpg)
This group of Earthlings 'has reasons' to believe God doesn't exist, but we sent out a deep space probe with a golden LP record on it just in case someone snatches it up.


(http://img2.allvoices.com/thumbs/image/609/480/78605871-cooper-gordon.jpg)
On May 15, 1963, aboard a Mercury space capsule, during the final orbit, Major Gordon Cooper told the tracking station at Muchea (near Perth Australia) that he could see a glowing, greenish object ahead of him quickly approaching his capsule. The UFO was real and solid, because it was picked up by Muchea's tracking radar. Cooper's sighting was reported by the National Broadcast Company, which was covering the flight step by step; but when Cooper landed, reporters were told that they would not be allowed to question him about the UFO sighting. NASA knew a great deal about whatever or whoever was following Cooper around the earth, but they don't think it was God.


(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oWSTV9mufFA/TdaHWXoci2I/AAAAAAAAABg/9EIpCSxiqMY/s1600/Photo+-+Carl+Sagan+1.jpg)
The late Dr. Carl Sagan was the first president of The Planetary Society, a non-profit, tax-exempt membership organization dedicated to the exploration of the solar system and the search for extraterrestrial life. Founded in 1980 by Carl Sagan and Bruce Murray. Sagan wanted to make that ET contact, but he was sure it wasn't God.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=2609.165
MARS LIVES - Even here on MJ people flock to the thread about the possibility of life on Mars..

We all seem pretty certain that there is something else or someone else out there, as advanced or more advanced then we ever will be, how can we know it's not God?

http://i.imgur.com/8V96l.jpg

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God â€" the design argument of Paley â€" updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)


References
1.  Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
2.  Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
3.  Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
4.  Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
5.  Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
6.  Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
7.  Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
8.  Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
9.  Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
10.  Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
11.  Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
12.  Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.
13.  Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.
14.  Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.
15.  Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.
16.  Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.
17.  Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57
18.  Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
19.  Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.
20. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
21.  Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.
22.  Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the 23.  Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).
24.  Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, "The Creation", U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.
25.  McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.
26  Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com
27.  Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version).
28.  Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.


...Just in case anyone wants to check out my sources.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on June 09, 2012, 11:10:15 AM

Quote from: ronchamblin on June 09, 2012, 03:13:34 AM
I could send great sums to support the GOP, so that I could have in power guys to assist me in keeping more of my money, guys who want to help me and the other the rich be richer..... guys who are on the side of the god who has been helping the rich for a long time.  The rich and their god are on the same side.  And they have the wonderful evangelicals along too.  It makes for a good team.

Really? I'm a evangelical Christian and a Democrat, perhaps I worship a different God? Anyone can find fakes and flimflam artists hiding in the churches or even occasionally disguised as church leaders. Unless something or someone totally human mistreated you at the mission when you needed help or food. It seems a rather narrow, condescending attitude to attack all Christian people, who as a whole, want to help.

OCKLAWAHA

Joel O'Steen, as a whole, wants to help himself - and does a very good job of it ;D

Posted by BackinJax05

"Joel O'Steen, as a whole, wants to help himself - and does a very good job of it.  ;D"


Joel O’steen?  He is a magician, a charlatan, an imposter, and above all understands and engages the vulnerable psychological aspects of the human minds gathered around him each Sunday as he, with his constant, somewhat creepy smile, tugs at emotions about family, about children, about need, about forgiveness, and about love, all being emotions which fundamentally have nothing to do with a god or a revealed religion, and require no assistance from an imagined god or a mega church empire for their solutions and care.  It is an embarrassment to those of us who realize that he and his kind cultivate a flock of psychologically needy people who, because they cannot think critically and help themselves in this world, must seek the assistance of a witchdoctor as he carries them, by the help of their foolishness and ignorance, into an imagined other world.  This cultivation of fantasy might be fine in many respects, much as a child visits Disneyworld, or an adult reads a fantasy novel, but there are some unfortunate consequences.   

His empire is a sham, and results in mega millions wasted, spent on himself and his, and on the shameful mega church, all the while avoiding taxes which could go to the communities.  The most damaging consequence of his journeys into fantasy with his sheep is that he cultivates and perpetuates a lie, injects an opium into the minds of those who, by their weakness of mind, accept what is fundamentally false.  His sham therefore cultivates and perpetuates their partnership with the politically conservative disease which is acting to weaken and destabilize this country, a condition which will cause in the end more suffering for us all, and perhaps even contribute to the destruction of our nation as we know it. 

We do not need more sheep who blindly follow these charlatans.  We need to cultivate individuals who think rationally about problems, who can support movements which will effectively and realistically reduce the suffering which is spreading throughout the world, spreading partially as a result of the backwardness and insanity cultivated by these revealed religions, all of which should finally be abandoned and replaced by reason and responsible living.  Individuals should be accountable for their actions, and not be given the option to behave badly or irresponsibly simply because they expect forgiveness from some imagined god.         

I don't pretend to know Joel O'Steen's motivations - or any of their motivations. For all I know, they could really believe in what they do and say. It almost makes more sense that way.

There's also the extreme outside chance that what he's selling is actually the truth. But I highly doubt that (to put it mildly).

Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 12, 2012, 11:17:42 PM

Oh I believe in science alright, and find myself in the company of many of the worlds noted scientists who, like me, believe in a God. We don't all believe the same things, but they believe and feel the evidence lays in their work. So if you want to call on scientist's, here's my list:

(http://kafee.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/albert-einstein-1947-celebrities-28956.jpg)
Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."  Einstein was more inclined to denigrate disbelievers than the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," Einstein said in correspondence, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'—cannot hear the music of the spheres." In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein explained: I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things. "Spinoza contends that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") is a being of infinitely many attributes, of which thought and extension are two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as one and the same.

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)


References
1.  Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
2.  Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
3.  Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
4.  Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
5.  Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
6.  Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
7.  Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
8.  Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
9.  Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
10.  Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
11.  Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
12.  Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.
13.  Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.
14.  Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.
15.  Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.
16.  Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.
17.  Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57
18.  Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
19.  Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.
20. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
21.  Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.
22.  Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the 23.  Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).
24.  Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, "The Creation", U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.
25.  McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.
26  Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com
27.  Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version).
28.  Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.


...Just in case anyone wants to check out my sources.

Ock these poor misguided fools are clearly delusional.

Einstein was also a Communist, so I guess that proves that Communism is correct, too.

Quote from: vince on July 09, 2012, 01:07:01 PM
Well, modern medicine calls it: Laryngeal prominence

I call it an Adam's Apple because that is what I was taught to call it.

That's funny you say that...you call it that because you were "told" that....is that what religion is....if we all keep saying it....that makes it true....perfect example of why christianity and religion is just bupkus hope turned into a lie turned into fact which is a lie...

Ock and BT...thanks much, but please....  me and some partners on MJ are leading the way to the ultimate truth... yes, right here on MJ..., which will with time be found to be outside of religious opinion and dogma.  Some individuals, perhaps not having the time or inclination to generate arguments created within their own minds, use the statements of others who are presumed to be infallible, and while doing so, not offering other possibly contradicting statements from these individuals from elsewhere in their lives, not offering the context within which these statements occurred, and not suggesting that the use of the term "god" might be as I would use it; that is, to suggest that the term describes the perfect order of the universe, an order which is slowly being allowed our understanding as we study it, and as our continuing evolution better equips us.

I must work now, but tremble in your boots, as I will return with a vengeance, with sober logic, with concern, with wisdom, with honesty, with detailed opposition to some of the statements and arguments offered above.   

As I have stated before, Religion is of Man, by Man and for Man and has no bearing on reality.  The teachings from the various religions, be it the Bible or the writings on the walls of ancient temples have to do with keeping the masses in line with what the religious leaders wanted, or as often the case in the Bible, to keep the followers from being fed to the lions.  Sometimes, the teachings were a form of birth control or just a way to help folks get along with each other.  Through the millennia, religions have been needed to explain what no one could explain and used as much for evil as they have been used for good.  Religions have also been used to pass on valuable information. How to be safe, how to avoid disease and avoid persecution by those in power.

As science has explained much of what the religions sought to with their teachings, the devote and their leadership can't help but seek explanations as to why their teachings are at odds with real science.   As people change, the religions must also to keep their followers. 


None of this is bad, it just is.  People as a whole need something greater than themselves to believe in.  Be it a god or just a cause to fight for.  None of us truly have all the answers, be us men of God or men of Science, which is sometimes as much of a religion as Christianity.

All of this is, of course, just one persons opinion.  My beliefs are just that, mine,  and what matters most is that they work for me.  If your beliefs work for you, well then, that's fine too.

Go with Peace.  Or May God be with you.  Or Shabbat shalom.  Or May the Force be with you.  They all mean the same in the end, do they not?

Ron... there really is no argument.  The quotes are simply show that some believers... HAVE thought through things as you have.  They have come to a differing possible conclusion regarding a "higher power".  The implication from many posting here and in other publications is that believers are somehow duped or delusional, or needing a crutch or simply continue on with what Mommy and daddy taught them.

This is a stereotype and a caricature.  I and many others are perfectly at peace with atheists, agnostics, christian, muslim or scientologist.  Whatever floats your boat!  Most adults have examined their belief system and have come to various conclusions.  The great part about all of this is... NONE of us know the truth... until we die!!

Makes some sense Strider and BT, but there is more on those aspects in my view, more which I don't have the time now to discuss.  However, I am concerned about he CONSEQUENCES of thinking habits, or acting, not acting, and complacency, according to religious belief.  We've seen, I think most will agree, continue to see, questionable consequences of mass belief in religion, whether in the Middle East, in America, or right here in the city of Jax. I agree that we cannot immediately do anything about the millions who believe, as there are too many, and they are set in their thinking.  I will have to be satisfied for the moment, knowing that myself and a few others are on the right track.  ;D

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 13, 2012, 08:13:00 AM
Ron... there really is no argument.  The quotes are simply show that some believers... HAVE thought through things as you have. 

Wrong. No believers have thought through things as Ron or any other rational/agnostic/atheistic person has. If they had, they wouldn't be religious. Religion is the cessation of rational thought. Let's not confuse the two.

QuoteReligion is the cessation of rational thought.

Wow... really Ben?  you are saying that the scientists quoted a few posts above along with the vast majority of human beings alive now and and past are not rational thinkers?

Seems a bit irrational to me... 8)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 13, 2012, 10:55:08 AM

QuoteReligion is the cessation of rational thought.

Wow... really Ben?  you are saying that the scientists quoted a few posts above along with the vast majority of human beings alive now and and past are not rational thinkers?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. As a species, by and large, humans are inherently irrational. Does that really come as a surprise to anybody who keeps their eyes open on a day to day basis?

Not to mention your "scientist quotes" are taken insanely, extremely, and disturbingly out of context. Laughably so.

Quote from: ben says on July 13, 2012, 11:06:29 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 13, 2012, 10:55:08 AM

QuoteReligion is the cessation of rational thought.

Wow... really Ben?  you are saying that the scientists quoted a few posts above along with the vast majority of human beings alive now and and past are not rational thinkers?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. As a species, by and large, humans are inherently irrational. Does that really come as a surprise to anybody who keeps their eyes open on a day to day basis?

Not to mention your "scientist quotes" are taken insanely, extremely, and disturbingly out of context. Laughably so.

Awesome!  I bow to your superior intellect and rationality...  ;)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 13, 2012, 11:10:54 AM

Quote from: ben says on July 13, 2012, 11:06:29 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 13, 2012, 10:55:08 AM

QuoteReligion is the cessation of rational thought.

Wow... really Ben?  you are saying that the scientists quoted a few posts above along with the vast majority of human beings alive now and and past are not rational thinkers?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. As a species, by and large, humans are inherently irrational. Does that really come as a surprise to anybody who keeps their eyes open on a day to day basis?

Not to mention your "scientist quotes" are taken insanely, extremely, and disturbingly out of context. Laughably so.

Awesome!  I bow to your superior intellect and rationality...  ;)

I am not claiming I have superior intellect. In fact, this conversation has nothing to do with intellect. I certainly didn't mention it. With regards to rationality, as I said before, most if not all humans are inherently irrational. Some are more rational than others, and people can definitely become more or less rational. Just think about all the irrational things we do on a day to day basis! Especially actions based on....emotion!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqB3F6N527U

Quote from: ben says on July 13, 2012, 11:24:49 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 13, 2012, 11:10:54 AM

Quote from: ben says on July 13, 2012, 11:06:29 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 13, 2012, 10:55:08 AM

QuoteReligion is the cessation of rational thought.

Wow... really Ben?  you are saying that the scientists quoted a few posts above along with the vast majority of human beings alive now and and past are not rational thinkers?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. As a species, by and large, humans are inherently irrational. Does that really come as a surprise to anybody who keeps their eyes open on a day to day basis?

Not to mention your "scientist quotes" are taken insanely, extremely, and disturbingly out of context. Laughably so.

Awesome!  I bow to your superior intellect and rationality...  ;)

I am not claiming I have superior intellect. In fact, this conversation has nothing to do with intellect. I certainly didn't mention it. With regards to rationality, as I said before, most if not all humans are inherently irrational. Some are more rational than others, and people can definitely become more or less rational. Just think about all the irrational things we do on a day to day basis!

It's also worth noting that a number of the scientists quoted are (or were) atheists (or similar). Stephen Hawking certainly is - and it's easy to see from the supplied quote that he was not literally referring to the actual mind of god.

Quote from: ben says on July 13, 2012, 11:24:49 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 13, 2012, 11:10:54 AM

Quote from: ben says on July 13, 2012, 11:06:29 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 13, 2012, 10:55:08 AM

QuoteReligion is the cessation of rational thought.

Wow... really Ben?  you are saying that the scientists quoted a few posts above along with the vast majority of human beings alive now and and past are not rational thinkers?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. As a species, by and large, humans are inherently irrational. Does that really come as a surprise to anybody who keeps their eyes open on a day to day basis?

Not to mention your "scientist quotes" are taken insanely, extremely, and disturbingly out of context. Laughably so.

Awesome!  I bow to your superior intellect and rationality...  ;)

I am not claiming I have superior intellect. In fact, this conversation has nothing to do with intellect. I certainly didn't mention it. With regards to rationality, as I said before, most if not all humans are inherently irrational. Some are more rational than others, and people can definitely become more or less rational. Just think about all the irrational things we do on a day to day basis! Especially actions based on....emotion!

Ah... so you are simply more rational than the vast majority of humans to ever walk the earth.  I bow to you superior... um... er... rationality.

Quote

Ah... so you are simply more rational than the vast majority of humans to ever walk the earth.  I bow to you superior... um... er... rationality.

You don't have to be a virtuoso to tell when someone else is singing out of tune.

Quote from: nomeus on July 13, 2012, 11:29:34 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqB3F6N527U

Again a beautiful post Nomeus. showing a great video.  This is the kind of honesty I love to see.  It's brutal, but quite true in my view.

Quote from: Adam W on July 13, 2012, 11:40:07 AM

Quote

Ah... so you are simply more rational than the vast majority of humans to ever walk the earth.  I bow to you superior... um... er... rationality.

You don't have to be a virtuoso to tell when someone else is singing out of tune.

very true Adam... very true... ;)

It’s encouraging to see that there is less of the emotional sniping at each other, and more calm and thoughtful exchanges as we engage the potentially volatile subject of religion and the idea of some kind of a god existing within our universe.  I’ve found myself occasionally exhibiting excessive emotion, and have sensed later that I could have conveyed my ideas better with less of it.  Although the cultivation of emotion is occasionally fun, in most cases, as emotion subsides, reason arrives.   

Quote from: stephendare on July 13, 2012, 12:22:19 PM
In all fairness, most of us are vastly more rational than the majority of human beings to ever walk the earth, bridge troll.

Even little children today know that the earth is round and that the sun isn't an opinionated fire dragon.

It's not terribly fair to criticize someone by basically calling them a know it all just because they disagree with long dead scientists who also believed thing like the (pardon the pun) fallacy that the male erection is caused by an inflation of the lungs (da Vinci)

I'm fine with that.  Seems a bit off putting to say that I am more rational than you because I believe this or that.  There is an air of superiority to those types of statements that rubs my fur the wrong way... perhaps it is just me though.

Quote from: strider on July 13, 2012, 08:10:04 AM
As I have stated before, Religion is of Man, by Man and for Man

No argument in this statement, RELIGION is man's weak attempt to reach out and touch God. Mankind is often infected (to use Ron's term) with inherent evil, evil I don't understand and be it selling unneeded roofing to flood victims, or creating a glass palace 'to God' it's just plain wrong.

IMO, 'church' should be nothing more then the 'body' of believers in a common deity seeking to do good in the world.

Quote from: stephendare on July 13, 2012, 12:34:48 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 13, 2012, 12:29:59 PM

Quote from: stephendare on July 13, 2012, 12:22:19 PM
In all fairness, most of us are vastly more rational than the majority of human beings to ever walk the earth, bridge troll.

Even little children today know that the earth is round and that the sun isn't an opinionated fire dragon.

It's not terribly fair to criticize someone by basically calling them a know it all just because they disagree with long dead scientists who also believed thing like the (pardon the pun) fallacy that the male erection is caused by an inflation of the lungs (da Vinci)

I'm fine with that.  Seems a bit off putting to say that I am more rational than you because I believe this or that.  There is an air of superiority to those types of statements that rubs my fur the wrong way... perhaps it is just me though.

So you don't really mean to use the device in order to force your opponent into a defensive position by forcing them to prove that your argument has equal weight because as people you have equal human worth?

That's usually the reason that I see the argument used.

As I told Ron... there really is no "argument".  I don't care what Ben believes, nor Ock, nor Adam, nor Ron.  It is their belief.  My feathers were ruffled when Ben decided his belief is more rational than someone elses... because... well... he is more rational.  As a matter of fact he said most humans were irrational... apparently with the exceptions of those who thought as he does.  I had to clarify his position to understand just where he is coming from.  Now I know.

I agree Bridge Troll - I've got enough issues worrying about what I believe and think than to worry about what others believe.

Just leave me alone and I'll reciprocate!

Quote from: Adam W on July 13, 2012, 12:50:21 PM
I agree Bridge Troll - I've got enough issues worrying about what I believe and think than to worry about what others believe.

Just leave me alone and I'll reciprocate!

That is where I stand also.

The whole idea behind this thread was never to try and 'convert' the other side, rather, to have a look into what others believe and why. Speaking of belief, believe me when I tell you that this thread was set up by a Christian and an Atheist working together for this common goal. I'm glad it's been pretty civil, as we decided early on that we would tolerate ZERO name calling and insults. That said, if you are here to score points or crush someones belief or disbelief with some self proclaimed 'superiority', you're in the wrong place and in danger of being deleted. Keep it nice and let's continue to have intelligent conversation on various belief systems in the world.

THANKS TO ALL. You may now resume your discussions....

my god is better than your god? protestants vs catholic... gets interesting at 1:38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My5cf2zlkpo&feature=youtu.be

silly people

At its core, that's not really about religion.

Quote from: nomeus on July 13, 2012, 03:42:56 PM
my god is better than your god? protestants vs catholic... gets interesting at 1:38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My5cf2zlkpo&feature=youtu.be

silly people

Sorry my friend but Judaism, Islam and Christianity (both Catholic and Protestants, and a few who don't fit either) all share the same creator God. I'll check out the video later but that's my first reaction, gotta leave for a while.

Quote from: ronchamblin on July 13, 2012, 07:58:09 AM

I must work now, but tremble in your boots, as I will return with a vengeance, with sober logic, with concern, with wisdom, with honesty, with detailed opposition to some of the statements and arguments offered above.   

I missed this earlier Ron, LOL!

WORK? I don't do anything at all, daddy sends me a check.

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on July 10, 2012, 12:01:06 PM
I'm a little late to this rodeo, but I think you are misinterpreting the Bible to some extent from all the posts I've read. There are often many layers of meaning within the text, and each book was written with certain contexts that need to be considered to gain a proper understanding of its meaning. Regarding the creation story in Genesis, I think you need to consider a few things before you completely write it off. First, consider the fact that according to the first creation story in Genesis (there are two creation accounts in Genesis) the whole of creation was made in seven days, but the sun and moon are not created until the fourth day. Obviously, you cannot have a day without the sun rising and setting. That should indicate right away that this is not a literal play-by-play of the facts of creation. It is a vehicle by which certain truths are communicated. For instance, by this account we learn that God is eternal, He created us, and that man holds a special place among creation as evidenced by our free will and intellect.

Speaking of the creation of men, the story of Adam and Eve is not disproved by science because humanity is not completely defined by scientifically observable terms. Man is body and soul, and that soul is a rational soul that separates man from other animals. That's why in the second creation story in Genesis God first forms man out of clay (that is He created a body), but man is not complete until God breathes into him (imparts man with a soul). Among all the visible creation, man possesses a unique self-awareness that allows him to give himself to others and to God. The important lesson here is that at some distinct point in time humans stopped being simply the animal, Homo Sapiens, and became a man with a rational soul. Again that is something that we cannot observe scientifically, so science can neither prove or disprove in this case.

Back to the larger point, we can have a partial knowledge of God in the observable world and by reason, but He goes beyond the bounds of what is visible. He is infinite. That means we can provide evidence that points to His existence. However, in this life we can neither definitively prove nor disprove His existence. That means that it is going to come down to a matter of faith. You can put your faith in God, but it is possible to put faith in other things such as a science. I would posit that it is at least as much if not a greater leap of faith to wholly place your trust in science given how often we find that what we once thought was true actually turned out to be bunk. I pray that one day each of you may have the gift of faith in God.

P.S. - Here's an scientific theory by one of the greatest minds ever that has been disproved by later discoveries just to illustrate what I'm saying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe)

As a historical record, the story of Adam and Eve (as well as any other Genesis story) is disproven by fact (we need to stop throwing the word "science" around. It is fact that refutes the story, science is simply a tool used to find facts. The argument is not God v science, it is God v something else that we might be able to discover through science, which could possibly be a diety). Your argument is basically that science is another thing that we can choose to have faith in. Excepting a philosophical argument about the physical world not actually existing and all our experiences being the product of sensory perception of a 'brain in a test tube,' there is no argument against the validity of scientific fact. You attempt to prove the failure of science by pointing to the failure of scientific theories, but you do not understand what a theory is. It is a self-admitted best-guess to explain phenomenon. It does not purport to be true and require faith in its validity, but is put forth as a possible solution that demands peer review and exhaustive testing. Even an incorrect theory has compelling though incomplete evidence, which is more than can be said for any religious claim.

So you are 100% sure there is a soul imparted to man by God, though you have no proof for either, most likely because that belief has been nurtured upon you? But you are incredibly skeptical of the validity of gravity, or relativity (upon which much of modern technology is based)?

Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 11, 2012, 11:52:03 PM
So you rely on reasons to believe in whatever and I don't?

Not on "reasons." On reason.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 11, 2012, 11:52:03 PM
Do I believe in Creation? Yes, but I don't pretend to know, nor is it my job to figure out the who, what, when, where, why and how. I think a much greater extraterrestrial intelligence, directed the creation. That intelligence lives in what we might call the 4Th dimension, and trying to explain his actions away by saying it is literal, or figurative, doesn't effect what I believe.  If we learn tomorrow that the account in Genesis it exactly literally correct, I'm cool with that, if we learn that it happened over millions of years, ages, evolution, etc. then I'm cool with that too.

Here's the problem: The thing highlighted above already happened. We already know Genesis did not literally happen and we know that the Earth came about over billions of years and animals evolved over millions. You take an extraterrestrial intelligence living in the "4th dimension" as a fact (casually, almost in passing) without any proof, but are not convinced on whether Adam and Eve actually existed and a snake with legs convinced the only woman to get the only man to eat an apple (fruit) that made that diety very angry despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. There is a disconnect in reasoning.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on July 11, 2012, 11:52:03 PM
We all seem pretty certain that there is something else or someone else out there, as advanced or more advanced then we ever will be, how can we know it's not God?

I don't think the premise here is true (not everyone believes, nor are they certain, that there is something else out there, and also not something specifically more advanced than us), but I don't think we do know its not God, and I don't think anywhere here is arguing that it definitely, positively isn't God. The problem is, you are saying you absolutely do believe it is God. You have no factual basis for this. So wouldn't it be better to say "there might be something out there, let's try and find it" than "I know what's out there, so searching/looking/learning/researching is not really necessary, some dudes thousands of years ago gave us all the answers in the form of incredibly unrealistic fiction that we have sorted through to find the answers."

Great post

@PeeJayeEss:

Your rebuttal is full of contradictions that illustrate exactly what I'm saying. Faith according to google is "complete trust or confidence in something." In science, you have to trust that the data is accurate, the methods are sound, and the ones making interpretations are interpreting it all correctly. You even point out that theory is a best guess which others must agree with or reject (in other words deciding whether to trust another's conclusions). You imply that scientific theory is irrelevant, but you treat theories as fact in saying that Adam and Eve is disproven by fact. A fact is "a thing that is indisputably the case," but the fact that we are having a conversation about the validity of the Genesis creation stories suggests that what you're claiming is disputable. Furthermore, you have no definitive proof yourself; you may have evidence which some people have drawn different conclusions on about the beginning of humanity. That my friend is a theory by your own definition which individuals have to decide whether to trust or distrust. In other words, the must decide whether or not to have faith in the conclusions others have drawn.

Now that we have that out of the way, I may have framed my point poorly in a way that suggests that by believing in God you must abandon science completely. That's untrue. However, science alone is an inadequate tool to prove or disprove the existence of God because He transcends what is observable and measurable. Yet many completely trust (i.e.; put their faith in) the scientific process or reason alone to decide if God exists.. It's the same as if you tried to decide if you love someone scientifically. You could collect data on your neurochemistry, your heart rate, and the dilation of your pupils, and after that you could sit down list that person's weaknesses and strengths and compare the number of good experiences with the number of bad experiences with that person. Yet all that information cannot definitively show you whether you love someone because love is something that transcends the purely physical. So it is with God. It is a decision you should approach with both your head and your heart.

With that in mind, I would encourage you to open yourself to at least the possibility that God exists. If you're genuinely interested I could point you towards some literature that provides evidence for the existence of God, so that even if you reject that God exists you can at least say you have given the topic the serious consideration it deserves. I am actually an adult convert to Christianity myself, so I understand the skepticism. I would just challenge you to turn down the skepticism enough to give the idea a fair shake before making a final judgement (cue rimshot  ;)). Take care.

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on July 23, 2012, 05:33:58 PM
A fact is "a thing that is indisputably the case," but the fact that we are having a conversation about the validity of the Genesis creation stories suggests that what you're claiming is disputable.

The fact that we are having the conversation is not evidence that both sides have valid points. We are having the conversation because you are making the illogical and unreasonable claim that there is a possibility that the Genesis story is historical record. I haven't said God doesn't exist anywhere in this thread (at least not directly), I have simply taken issue with your literalist framing of the debate which I think is damaging to both religion and faith as a whole. The Holy See does not dispute evolution, it simply maintains that we humans are special because we have a soul that is specially and particularly given to us by God, and this could have happened at some point in our evolution from other primates. Or perhaps, God put the soul in even earlier, and all primates have one, or all mammals, or all animals, or all living creatures. I just don't know.

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on July 23, 2012, 05:33:58 PM
Now that we have that out of the way, I may have framed my point poorly in a way that suggests that by believing in God you must abandon science completely. That's untrue. However, science alone is an inadequate tool to prove or disprove the existence of God because He transcends what is observable and measurable. Yet many completely trust (i.e.; put their faith in) the scientific process or reason alone to decide if God exists.. It's the same as if you tried to decide if you love someone scientifically. You could collect data on your neurochemistry, your heart rate, and the dilation of your pupils, and after that you could sit down list that person's weaknesses and strengths and compare the number of good experiences with the number of bad experiences with that person. Yet all that information cannot definitively show you whether you love someone because love is something that transcends the purely physical. So it is with God. It is a decision you should approach with both your head and your heart.

This paragraph is a complete cop-out of constructive debate on the topic, which is why I think it cheapens the position of others of faith. The assumption here that you are using as proof that God cannot be found by science is that love exists as a definitive thing. While the romantic in me would agree, the skeptic in me would ask, how are you so sure? Do other animals have love (penguins mate for life)? Or is it possible that love is simply a romanticized, monetized modern manifestation of our evolutionary need to procreate? In that case, "love" probably can be proven or predicted. Hell, matchmakers would already claim they can predict love.

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on July 23, 2012, 05:33:58 PM
With that in mind, I would encourage you to open yourself to at least the possibility that God exists. If you're genuinely interested I could point you towards some literature that provides evidence for the existence of God, so that even if you reject that God exists you can at least say you have given the topic the serious consideration it deserves. I am actually an adult convert to Christianity myself, so I understand the skepticism. I would just challenge you to turn down the skepticism enough to give the idea a fair shake before making a final judgement (cue rimshot  ;)). Take care.

Your assumption is that because I argue against Adam and Eve as historical record that I am not schooled on the teachings, readings, and tenets of the faith. That would be a poor assumption. Please do direct me towards this literature that gives evidence of God's existence. I did not know it had been proven. It would surely shed light on this forum, and I think we would all have something to gain from it.

"What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" - Pope Pius XII

I think you're really misunderstanding my position on a couple things here. First, I am not arguing that the Genesis creation story is a historical play-by-play account, but there are several truths that we can gain from it with the correct reading of the text. I'm not actually disputing the theory of evolution; I'm disputing a Darwinian take on evolution where humans are treated like just another animal. I'm saying that humans are distinct from animals because of their rational souls, and there is a finite beginning where we became man and not just another animal. That fact is self-evident. I mean do dolphins or octopi contemplate the reason for their own existence? Does a chimp make a conscious decision whether their actions are good or evil? Why is it wrong to murder a person but not wrong for animals to kill each other? It is plain that we are qualitatively different from animals, and I'm only saying that there is a distinct point in time where we stopped being animals and became truly human, body and soul.

About your second point, the main point is that science must be informed by faith because science will only take us so far. Most people would reject what you say about love being able to be defined strictly by science and reason, but the same idea could apply to things like defining the beauty of something. I see it like this: science and reason can reveal to us much about God but it takes faith to make to be able to make proper sense of it. Science and reason actually reveal how great God is once we have the gift of faith which is why it's possible for people of faith can be great scientists and philosophers. My argument is not for either or God; it's argument for both/and because one complements the other.

That said here is some reading for you:
20 arguments for the existence of God - http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm)
Here's link to an audio discussion on the existence of God - http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/proofs-for-gods-existence-part-i-6821# (http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/proofs-for-gods-existence-part-i-6821#)
Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church starting at section 283 would back up a lot of what I said. Here's an online version: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/ (http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/)
What is poetic knowledge? (This doesn't prove the existence of God, but puts forward that there are other types of knowledge that is valuable besides scientific knowledge) - http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/what-is-poetic-knowledge (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/what-is-poetic-knowledge)
Regarding our discussion on creation - http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis) and http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution)

Lastly, you're right that I shouldn't make assumptions about what you know or don't know about Christianity. Sorry. I think you've made some similar assumptions about me, too. So, if you don't mind me asking, what is your faith background? Personally, I am a Catholic who converted from agnosticism about 3 or 4 years ago. Sorry if I have come off as trying to attack you personally. I really am just trying to present a different perspective on the conversation and challenging the arguments. No hard feelings.  :)

Of course, and I suppose this allows me to be called an atheist, my position is that man has created the idea of a god, a heaven, a hell.  Man has created thousands of gods.  A Baptist, a Catholic Priest, or a Muslim will attempt convincing others that there is only one god, and that it is their god.  The forces and mechanisms of nature, which operate according to the laws of the universe, caused man, created man, and the mechanisms of evolution have allowed man to think on a level exceeding that of any other animal.  Creation?  The universe is the creator.  And man creates new things from what already exists in nature.   

Nature, by its laws, creates diversity, creates more, and man, by his intelligence, creates things to satisfy his needs.  A creator?  A god?  These ideas were imagined by man long ago, perhaps even as a consequence of genetic pressures to survive, as with the mothering instinct, so as to enhance the probability of survival as individuals and societies.  The mind’s receptivity to religious belief has probably been shaped by evolution, as the belief in religion seems to have conferred upon a society, at least in early ages, a better chance of survival.

The obvious tendency for many individuals to cling to a belief in a god might be a consequence of lingering genetic pressures within, making it difficult for some to emerge free from it so that they might engage life without the idea of a god, without the idea of sin, or a heaven or a hell, and without the idea of something supreme above to give assistance and comfort when needed.

Some of us, as evidenced by some on MJ, are emerging free, free from this lingering belief in a god, a kind of father in heaven.  We have no need for faith, but gain more confidence that we know; and this, not only by way of the probabilities offered by our growing understanding of nature and the laws of the universe, but also by our awareness of the psychological mechanisms by which the religious remain attached to their beliefs.

Some of us, being free from a belief in a god as portrayed by the religions created by man, have allowed ourselves to more comfortably engage the probability that we are not alone in the universe.  Because of the immense size of the universe, coupled with its structure, mechanisms, and laws, the idea that we have neighbors which we call aliens, who are probably contemplating us as we contemplate them, is held to be highly probable by those who tend to imagine possibilities and  contemplate probabilities.  I have more confidence in the idea of aliens, than in the idea of a god as portrayed by the revealed religions we’ve seen imagined and created by man during the past few thousand years. 

In my view, there is a high probability that we will meet one day other beings from planets in other systems in the universe.  The idea of meeting other creatures who have also emerged from the soup of the universe as a consequence of the mechanisms of physics and chemistry, as cultivated and guided by the principles of evolution, is much more believable, as compared to the idea of a god who is sitting in judgment upon us, watching us, threatening hell upon us, concerned with us, urging us to worship no other god. 

The bible teaches some principles of human behavior, but these would emerge in any society or village simply as a consequence of logic and need.  The bible contains poetry and parables, and a measure of history which can be verified as true.  And although it originally conveyed the beliefs of tribal peoples and villagers in a god, it is basically fiction in most respects, and even descends to nonsense in other respects. 

But, back to the idea of the other beings.  I think I saw an alien on the sidewalk a few weeks ago.  It was a male, appearing quite human, but there was something strange about this individual.  The eyes were different, the pupils seeming too distinct, the lines or circles too defined.  And he walked funny.  Even though his feet were contacting the sidewalk, there was a sort of gliding movement.  Yes, it’s scary.  But I think some are here, visiting us, the aliens I mean.  But I’m encouraged by this as, obviously if he was or is an alien, and they are amongst us, they haven’t yet harmed us.  What would motivate them to harm us?   

But whether or not he was an alien, imagine the idea of an alien being able to travel to our planet.  They might have perhaps a million year head start on us, having had a technology a million years ago, as ours is now.  Imagine our technology a million years from now.  I wonder if there will be people of faith in a million years?  Will there be churches like the FBC?  Will there still be gods to which people will give attention, and even worship?  Will we have streetcars by then, and a vibrant downtown?  Will marijuana still be illegal?  Will humans be able not only to marry the same sex, but other animals, and even plants?  Will there still be religious charlatans and imposters like Joel O'steen, Jim Bakker, Ed Young, and Jimmy Swaggart?               
     
   

^ for that matter, Will Joel O'steen and Jimmy Swaggart still be here?  :o You know, they HAVE come up with life-extending measures and DNA  science stuff ( Jurassic Park )  so you never know ;)

Why would the existence of God preclude the possibility of alien life? Who's to say by what means God creates the universe or the extent of His creation?

Ron, I think you're right in suggesting that belief in God is an adaptive behavior that fills a need in man and society. We as human beings need to know why we are here (which again separates humans from other animals). We were made for a purpose by a loving creator, and the precepts which you say weigh man down are to me wings that lift us up to be our true selves. God does not relish in judgement and damnation; He only allows us to feel the weight of our own action. Just as surely as the alcoholic poisons himself every time he raises his glass, we bring a death to ourselves by our sin. God simply recognizes our own choice, and offers us mercy if we'll accept it.

Finally, why would we assume society is past a need for God? Fidelity to many of the traditional Judeo-Christian values and precepts started to wane many decades ago. Are people happier and more fulfilled as a result of "freeing" themselves? Are we as a people so different than any others in history? Can we trust our leaders to be just once they are free of the restrictions and limits of a Judeo-Christian ethic? I wholeheartedly agree that some Christians are deeply flawed people, but the specter of a Godless society is terrifying to me. We've had glimpses of this in places like Russia and China already, and I for one dread going down that same road.

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

We've been hearing about the benevolence of our atheist community, HERE IS YOUR CHANCE to multiply that love!

I'm inviting all atheists (some might say challenging) for a chance at helping families and children in critical need. In PANAMA , within the next two weeks we'll be giving water filtration systems to Indian families.

Call it 'an unholy' alliance if you wish, but the systems cost $100 dollars each and you've got my personal guarantee that 100% of that money goes to buy the filtration equipment.

Any takers? I'll be happy to see that your filter gets into the hands of a family that is likely drawing water out of highly polluted streams and rivers.

Oh, and yes, it's my tiny church group that will buy and distribute these filters... We'll take plenty of photos.

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on July 25, 2012, 10:32:08 AM
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

Being the only signer of the Declaration that was Catholic, Carroll was truly not in step with his contemporaries, who we consider to be the great early statesmen and founders of this country. A great many of them, who actually had a hand in shaping our great early documents (and not just signing them) were anti-religious (not necessarily non-spiritual). Among those who were not agnostics or atheists, there was a particular inclination towards deism, which rejects organized religion and says the existence of a Creator can be determined through reason and observation. It requires the same strong faith as any other religion that the Creator does exist, but without the mindless obedience to an organization or ancient book of parables, and (my favorite) without the belief that this Creator intervenes in our daily lives. If you believe in God AND you think this omnipotent, omniscient, immortal being that has set up the Universe to work ever so precisely and given you free will to do as you wish within the laws of his creation will intervene at your request in that Jags game, your test, or in your loved one's illness, you are either delusional or superstitious. Either way, you are trying to use religion/God to serve your own self interest.

Also, Carroll was a large slave-owner. So much for the sublime and pure morality of the Christian religion. I hope we can realize there is a higher morality than that which tells us to do good in order to not suffer eternal damnation. If you're only motivation in doing good is to get into heaven, I consider you neither moral nor good, but pathetic.

You're right, PeeJayEss. I don't believe in a God of convenience either that intervenes on command in all of the minutia. Personally, I seek to cooperate with His will, so that I am wanting what He wants. That's why I pray, "Thy Kingdom come. Thy Will be done." Of course, I pray for my needs and the needs of others, but I hope that it is in cooperation with His grace. I am asking, not telling. lol. But you also have to consider that no one is perfect. Everyone is in a different place on their faith journey, and just because this person fails to live up to the ideals of Christianity does not mean that the whole system is bunk. I teach math for a living. I make computational mistakes all the time. Doesn't mean all the math I teach is wrong.

I don't believe in mindless acceptance of God and His Church either. Like I keep saying, it's head and heart. It's faith and reason. If you read about the lives of the saints, you see people who struggle with their beliefs left and right. I'm reading Augustine's Confessions right now, and I will tell that he struggled with it for years. Mother Teresa had her dark night of the soul that stretched for decades. Saint Ignatius of Loyola only converted after being bound to his bed where he could only read and think. Christianity, Catholicism in particular, has a 2,000 year old tradition of contemplation and thought. Despite all that I would say you're right. Don't believe because the saints believed or I believe. Put your own intellect to use and in your heart have a desire for and openness to the truth.

That said, I don't have a particular taste to argue, but if anyone has heartfelt questions my inbox is always open. I am getting the sense that this conversation is becoming about judging people for their beliefs, and I know that is not my intention. I'm just putting a view forward. Take it or leave it.

(http://i.imgur.com/YVOwZ.png)

Come on in boys and girls, $100 bucks and I can deliver a pure water miracle to an indian family...

BTW, I'M SERIOUS! Send me a note, I'll get your filter on the flight to Panama.

OCK

Nomeus.  Beautiful piece.  So well done.  I wish I had written it.  But wait, I notice that god "did" sign it, right at the bottom.  That's amazing.  Finally, proof that god exists.   

Ock, I forgot.  So yes, I will be happy to do two of those water filters.  People need clean water.  If possible, people must have one of "the" most important necessities for life.  But wait, this might be a trick.  How do I know that you are not sending the money to Joel O'steen, or Ed Young?  These fellows are quite persuasive you know. 

Well... okay, I feel somehow that your association with religion and the spiritual avoids the insane end of the spectrum, and that you aren't going to be persuaded by the TV charlatans, the fellows who offer some of us the occasional comedy show.  They are quite funny to watch.  I really miss the shows of Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Falwell.  They are so hilarious.     

 

Ron, if you want a Sunday morning giggle, turn on CBS around 8 or 8:30 and watch the Jack Van Impe show, and pay very,very, special attention to his wife - I am not making this up - Rexella. She's a TammyFaye if ever there was one, and she is so damn sincere you will be moved to send in money - really! As if that wasn't enough, they have an announcer with a voice that makes James Earl Jones sound like a castrato.

You'll enjoy it - I promise you. I watch every Sunday for about the last 5 minutes before CBS Sunday Morning comes on. I swear, I'm going to send those folks some money one day. Hey! Here is a good idea: Why don't you send me your money and I'll add it to mine and pass it all along. Salvation will be yours, my friend, and best of all it won't set you back too much.

Noemus: i'm with Ron on your G-d letter.

Noemus phenomenal letter!!!!

Maybe Nomeus is God :o

Quote from: nomeus on July 30, 2012, 11:13:25 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/YVOwZ.png)

Also, apply "Ancient Astronaut Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts)" along with this, then the shit will hit the fans for the religious folks.

-Josh

Quote from: ronchamblin on July 31, 2012, 02:18:36 AM
Nomeus.  Beautiful piece.  So well done.  I wish I had written it.  But wait, I notice that god "did" sign it, right at the bottom.  That's amazing.  Finally, proof that god exists.   

Ock, I forgot.  So yes, I will be happy to do two of those water filters.  People need clean water.  If possible, people must have one of "the" most important necessities for life.  But wait, this might be a trick.  How do I know that you are not sending the money to Joel O'steen, or Ed Young?  These fellows are quite persuasive you know. 

Well... okay, I feel somehow that your association with religion and the spiritual avoids the insane end of the spectrum, and that you aren't going to be persuaded by the TV charlatans, the fellows who offer some of us the occasional comedy show.  They are quite funny to watch.  I really miss the shows of Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Falwell.  They are so hilarious.     

I believe your summation of my religious feelings is pretty correct. I once got dragged (almost literally) to a penticostal 'healing meeting' which to my mind looked like a cross between a snake oil sales stand and Ringling Brothers. There were crutches and wheel chairs flying off the stage and people dying 'in the spirit', I just knew some 80 year old lady was going to catch a crutch upside the head, then she'd need real healing.

For me the worst moment came when it dawned on me that this dude 'blows the spirit on people.' Being the crusty old sailor that I am, I decided I needed healing for a permanent erection. As I started to get out of my seat, 3 of my friends grabbed me and pulled me back. 'What are you doing Bob?' 'I just want to go down there, jump up on the stage and tell him to blow this!' Oh well, it was a great thought while it lasted but in the end WWJD?

I have no problem looking at science or history and feel that any Christian that runs from the same isn't very well positioned in his faith. Even the idea's that Nomeus was tossing out about various miracles being mere quirks of nature explain them however you want, it was pretty darn cool that the volcanic gas that likely killed the first born of Egypt appeared on demand and that the Jewish servants would not have been in the rooms where the gas settled and killed. The Red Sea? Volcano's. If it turns out to be the Reed Sea, no big deal, the Jew's escaped and the Egyptians didn't. Jericho?  Earthquake took it out, conveniently, when Joshua's army marched around it... 'Those 'chosen people?' A minimum of 250 years before Christ it was predicted that the Jewish nation would be defeated, and it's people scattered across the world, but then, oddly, after 1,900 years, they'd retake their homeland and rise again as a center of the worlds attention. Bearing that in mind, we can look at what the Bible says. It is known that the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament into Greek was in existence at least 250 years before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. So there is no possibility that the Old Testament predictions were written down after the events.Imagine 1,900 years from now, a Confederate flag is flying over Richmond... Yeah well...

I know that you know, I'm not collecting money for  Joel O'steen, or Ed Young. I'm umbilically connected to the temperate zone. I've seen war and hunger up close and personal, even had a dinner on a balcony with leaders of M-19 / FARC boys and girls (which after being yanked out of a car by the army, feeling the cold steel of the barrel of a machine gun against my head and angrily searched while pressed hard against a car, probably wasn't the smartest meal I ever ordered). Bottom line, my heart breaks when I see these little children hungry, poor, and cursed to remain that way probably for life. Others might want to donate to this cause, and if you'd like I'll get photos of YOUR FILTER and an invoice AND a photo of the family or families they go to.

Filters are $100 dollars each. They last 10 years +/- You can see the details here: http://www.sawyer.com/sawyersaves//
Send me a PM or write bob@metrojacksonville.com and I'll hook you up with this trip to Panama.

OCKLAWAHA
(Which means MUDDY WATER btw)

Interesting take on this discussion topic...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/06/god_and_the_ivory_tower?page=0,0

Excerpts...

QuoteThe era of world struggle between the great secular ideological -isms that began with the French Revolution and lasted through the Cold War (republicanism, anarchism, socialism, fascism, communism, liberalism) is passing on to a religious stage. Across the Middle East and North Africa, religious movements are gaining social and political ground, with election victories by avowedly Islamic parties in Turkey, Palestine, Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco. As Israel's National Security Council chief, Gen. Yaakov Amidror (a religious man himself), told me on the eve of Tunisia's elections last October, "We expect Islamist parties to soon dominate all governments in the region, from Afghanistan to Morocco, except for Israel."

QuoteTo test this hypothesis, anthropologist Richard Sosis and his colleagues studied 200 communes founded in the United States in the 19th century. If shared religious beliefs really did foster loyalty, they reasoned, then communes formed out of religious conviction should survive longer than those motivated by secular ideologies such as socialism. Their findings were striking: Just 6 percent of the secular communes were still functioning 20 years after their founding, compared with 39 percent of the religious communes.

QuoteIf these things are worth knowing, why do scientists still shun religion?

Part of the reason is that most scientists are staunchly nonreligious. If you look at the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences or Britain's Royal Society, well over 90 percent of members are non-religious. That may help explain why some of the bestselling books by scientists about religion aren't about the science of religion as much as the reasons that it's no longer necessary to believe. "New Atheists" have aggressively sought to discredit religion as the chief cause of much human misery, militating for its demise. They contend that science has now answered questions about humans' origins and place in the world that only religion sought to answer in the days before evolutionary science, and that humankind no longer needs the broken crutch of faith.

QuoteMoreover, the chief complaint against religion -- that it is history's prime instigator of intergroup conflict -- does not withstand scrutiny. Religious issues motivate only a small minority of recorded wars. The Encyclopedia of Wars surveyed 1,763 violent conflicts across history; only 123 (7 percent) were religious. A BBC-sponsored "God and War" audit, which evaluated major conflicts over 3,500 years and rated them on a 0-to-5 scale for religious motivation (Punic Wars = 0, Crusades = 5), found that more than 60 percent had no religious motivation. Less than 7 percent earned a rating greater than 3. There was little religious motivation for the internecine Russian and Chinese conflicts or the world wars responsible for history's most lethal century of international bloodshed.

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/01/13611231-9000-year-old-charms-found-in-israel?lite (http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/01/13611231-9000-year-old-charms-found-in-israel?lite)

But the earth is only 2,000 years old!!! Right?

Quote from: stephendare on September 02, 2012, 10:14:57 AM

Quote from: ben says on September 02, 2012, 10:13:17 AM
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/01/13611231-9000-year-old-charms-found-in-israel?lite (http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/01/13611231-9000-year-old-charms-found-in-israel?lite)

But the earth is only 2,000 years old!!! Right?

8 thousand according to seriously fundamentalist evangelical literalists.

I thought that most biblical scholars suggest that the earth was created by the big dude in 4,004 B.C.   If so, this would make the earth a little over 6,000 years old; that is, according to the biblical story. 

I recently read an interesting idea that there might be an innate predisposition, or genetic pressure, to be religious, to believe in the existence of a god, to believe the teachings of a religion.  The writer suggested that perhaps from several million years ago to only tens of thousands of years ago there were survival benefits to the tribes or populations which were bound together by a religious belief in some kind of god, and therefore the genetic message was transmitted more often to offspring, resulting in further genetically implanted "religious" genes into the human population.  For example, a people bound by a common religious belief might fight the enemy with greater effort than would a tribe without the belief system, thus more of the former would survive the battles, and would pass along their "religion or god" genes.

The writer suggested that, just as language ability is genetically embedded in the infant by way of brain structures, so too is the religious tendency.  If very early humans were prepared genetically for learning language as a consequence of it being beneficial to survival as a species, I suppose it possible too regarding the belief in a god.

Therefore, individuals who in these modern times believe in a god might be better understood, and forgiven for this tendency to avoid being completely rational, if one accepted the possibility of this genetic pressure.  I’ve always thought that the decision or state of believing in a god or religion by moderns is a result perhaps of a great need to do so, and perhaps also as a consequence of being taught by parents, and persuaded by the preachers and peers. 

The idea that the genetic pressure to believe might be within all humans allows many of us, if we accept the idea, to better understand how so many individuals in our society can actually believe, in spite of all the reasons to not believe.   

Even though all humans might have the genes which prepare or urge us ever so slightly to believe in a god, some of us don’t believe perhaps because we are open to other pressures or understandings which urge us to not believe.  Perhaps it is as if all humans are pressured from both the genetic and environmental conditions to make a final religious decision, which is simply a consequence of balancing the components offering the best argument, or the most pressure.

In a way, I am comforted by the possibility of the genetic influence on the human tendencies to believe in the existence of a god, or to fully engage a religion, as this allows me to be more tolerant of the believers, whom I formerly might have considered to be lacking in some necessary intelligence.  The genetic idea, if it has a basis in fact, helps explain why so many moderns are religious, and in fact do believe in the existence of a god, in spite of all the reasons, according to my perspective, to avoid doing so.     

   

BT.  I missed this, your post 127, wherein you excerpted this article:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/06/god_and_the_ivory_tower?page=0,0

It was a good and interesting read.  I love articles which make me feel as though I've learned something.  This is rare, since I know so much.  ;D

Thank you for the link.

MY views are right  ::)
                                           
Everyone else here is WRONG, and headed straight to HELL!  >:(

Looks like I'm gonna be all alone in Heaven  ;)

(But thats ok with me, I dont like crowds anyway)

Quote from: ronchamblin on September 08, 2012, 02:38:01 AM
BT.  I missed this, your post 127, wherein you excerpted this article:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/06/god_and_the_ivory_tower?page=0,0

It was a good and interesting read.  I love articles which make me feel as though I've learned something.  This is rare, since I know so much.  ;D

Thank you for the link.

I try to be helpful...

The following is an interesting Huff Post article, shown complete, by Nigel Barber.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/is-religion-on-the-way-ou_b_1865173.html?utm_hp_ref=science&ir=Science

Title: Is Religion On The Way Out?

About three-quarters of the world's population feels that religion is important. Yet, this large majority is set to dwindle into minority status within a generation. The reason is that affluence kills piety, as I explain in a new book (Why Atheism Will Replace Religion).  (apparently e-book only at this time)

Religion as emotion-focused coping

Conversely, under development promotes religion. The basic human problem solved by religious belief systems may be coping with the stress of uncertainty in our daily lives. Whether it is natural disasters, hunger, warfare, diseases, the loss of the people we love, or any other psychological threat, religion offers a psychological security blanket. Indeed, religious rituals reduce stress and bring down blood pressure analogous to the calming effect of a child's security blanket.

Religion does not make a home earthquake-proof but allows the faithful to feel better about the experience of sitting down in the rubble of their dwelling after the quake hits. In the jargon of psychology, this is emotion-focused coping rather than problem-focused coping.

As countries develop, they devise ever better methods for dealing with practical problems that threaten our existence or wellbeing. Whether it is earthquake-proof housing, piped water, sanitation, pollution control, food safety, inoculation against diseases, the rule of law, or social safety nets, residents of developed countries have much more reason to feel secure in their person, livelihood, health, and freedom.

With practical problems solved, there is less need for the solace provided by religion. Problem-focused coping obviates emotion-focused rituals and beliefs. That is why atheism crops up only in developed countries where most people experience a good standard of living, such as Japan, or Sweden.

As the world economy continues to expand, and as each country becomes more and more integrated in the global economy, the standard of living of the entire planet will eventually catch up with that of contemporary developed countries that produce a secular majority. It follows that the entire world community will become secular.

I estimate that with the levels of economic development characteristic of the past thirty years, the secular majority will arrive by approximately 2038. That is a doubling of contemporary secularism but an increase of only 1 percent on an annual basis.

The rising tide of prosperity

Despite continued misery in various parts of the world, the global economy rides a seemingly unstoppable tide of increasing prosperity.

Half of the world's population already resides in cities so that our future as an urban creature is pretty well settled. We no longer have a few isolated city developments, or a few prosperous countries but a world in which increasing economic activity in one country spurs development in many others. This level of mutual interdependence inhibits war and boils down to unprecedented global stability.

Skeptics may question whether prosperity will continue. Some point to the environmental unsustainability of rapid development with its nasty consequences for specific ecologies, such as rainforests, and for the entire global ecosystem. Yet, the impact of global warming on economic growth is likely to be too modest to prevent rapid economic growth and consequent secularization.

Spirituality may also be a basic feature of the human condition that cannot disappear. Yet, it seems that organized religions are increasingly irrelevant to modern spirituality. People in developed countries are more interested than ever in basic questions about the origin and meaning of human life and in exploring world religions. They are also open to supernatural themes in fiction that rests on magic spells, time travel, vampires, and so on. Yet, they are increasingly disconnected from churches, priests, and dogmas that offer less to affluent societies.

Formal religion no longer has a central place, or function, in Western Europe, for example. Non-attendance at religious services, non-marriage, a declining demand for religious counseling, etc., boil down to religious weakness. Thanks to secure living conditions, organized religion is marginalized there and increasingly irrelevant to the mainstream secular population. Its decline throughout the entire global economy seems inevitable.


If Mr. Barber is right, it looks like me and my atheist friends are going to be less lonely in our atheism during the coming decades.  Actually, sensing the stubborn human tendency to believe in the most improbable things, I cannot feel as confident as Mr. Barber about his suggested rate of decline in religious belief, the belief in the existence of a god or the supernatural.  His basing the decline of religious belief somewhat on an improving living standard of the earth’s population is rather optimistic.  I sense that we might be entering a period of a worsening, or at least a stabilized, standard of living for most people on earth.  I suspect there will be a significant portion of religious believers on earth as long as there is significant poverty, a significant number of oppressed peoples, and in general, a pervasive ignorance of the sciences and world history.

Actually, as time passes, I find myself better able to tolerate living amongst a great many individuals who believe in gods and the supernatural as long as their beliefs do not excessively perpetuate suffering to others as a consequence of religious extremism, as a consequence of remaining too ignorant of worldly knowledge, and as long as they do not excessively deliver problems to me.  If people wish to live in the world of the supernatural and dependence on faith, prayer, and a god who occupies the imagination, so be it, as it is obviously a necessity and a comfort to many.  Besides, the believers are interesting to watch, especially the televangelists, who are actually the Sunday comedy shows for many of us.             

Just had to show this for my religious Christian friends who suggest the reality of a god, and that the bible is the word of a god.  This is a quote from a 1954 hand written letter by Einstein, which is to be auctioned off starting at $3,000,000 on Ebay soon.

“The Bible, a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

Of course, just because a great thinker like Einstein makes the above statement about the bible doesn’t mean it’s true beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it does give a little credence to those of us who have the same or similar ideas regarding the nature of the bible.

It’s interesting and encouraging that Einstein, after many decades of thought about religion and the nature of the bible, arrived at the above conclusion.  The persistent belief, by so many millions of people in this “modern” country, in the existence of a god and in the infallibility of the bible, in spite of so much in life and learning which forces most rational individuals to see the absurdities of believing, continues to amaze me. 

Believing in gods and the associeted religions might not be obviously harmful to society or individuals, but the harm exists.  There are damaging consequences in the political realm, and in the long range quality of life experienced by millions of people. 
 
 
     

“[A true atheist is one who is willing to face the full consequences of what it means to say there is no God. Given some of what we treat as religion, this is a significant commitment. The bottom line is that] ... many an atheist is a believer without knowing it. You can sincerely believe there is no God and live as though there is. You can sincerely believe there is a God and live as though there isn't. So it goes ... ... Wishful Thinking.”
Frederick Buechner quotes (American Author, b.1926)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 28, 2012, 01:06:55 PM
“[A true atheist is one who is willing to face the full consequences of what it means to say there is no God. Given some of what we treat as religion, this is a significant commitment. The bottom line is that] ... many an atheist is a believer without knowing it. You can sincerely believe there is no God and live as though there is. You can sincerely believe there is a God and live as though there isn't. So it goes ... ... Wishful Thinking.”
Frederick Buechner quotes (American Author, b.1926)

Typical misunderstanding of what it means to be an atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in god. Most atheists wouldn't claim to know 100% whether or not there actually IS a god.

But either way - it's not the same to believe in something that has no evidence whatsoever of its existence and to not believe in something that has no evidence whatsoever of its existence. Only one of those requires a leap of faith.

Quote from: Adam W on October 28, 2012, 01:20:59 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 28, 2012, 01:06:55 PM
“[A true atheist is one who is willing to face the full consequences of what it means to say there is no God. Given some of what we treat as religion, this is a significant commitment. The bottom line is that] ... many an atheist is a believer without knowing it. You can sincerely believe there is no God and live as though there is. You can sincerely believe there is a God and live as though there isn't. So it goes ... ... Wishful Thinking.”
Frederick Buechner quotes (American Author, b.1926)

Typical misunderstanding of what it means to be an atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in god. Most atheists wouldn't claim to know 100% whether or not there actually IS a god.

But either way - it's not the same to believe in something that has no evidence whatsoever of its existence and to not believe in something that has no evidence whatsoever of its existence. Only one of those requires a leap of faith.

Adam W I have prayed for your soul and God understands you even if you don't really believe in him.  :D

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 28, 2012, 01:47:04 PM

Quote from: Adam W on October 28, 2012, 01:20:59 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 28, 2012, 01:06:55 PM
“[A true atheist is one who is willing to face the full consequences of what it means to say there is no God. Given some of what we treat as religion, this is a significant commitment. The bottom line is that] ... many an atheist is a believer without knowing it. You can sincerely believe there is no God and live as though there is. You can sincerely believe there is a God and live as though there isn't. So it goes ... ... Wishful Thinking.”
Frederick Buechner quotes (American Author, b.1926)

Typical misunderstanding of what it means to be an atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in god. Most atheists wouldn't claim to know 100% whether or not there actually IS a god.

But either way - it's not the same to believe in something that has no evidence whatsoever of its existence and to not believe in something that has no evidence whatsoever of its existence. Only one of those requires a leap of faith.

Adam W I have prayed for your soul and God understands you even if you don't really believe in him.  :D

Thanks Dude!

Quote from: Adam W on October 28, 2012, 01:48:08 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 28, 2012, 01:47:04 PM

Quote from: Adam W on October 28, 2012, 01:20:59 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 28, 2012, 01:06:55 PM
“[A true atheist is one who is willing to face the full consequences of what it means to say there is no God. Given some of what we treat as religion, this is a significant commitment. The bottom line is that] ... many an atheist is a believer without knowing it. You can sincerely believe there is no God and live as though there is. You can sincerely believe there is a God and live as though there isn't. So it goes ... ... Wishful Thinking.”
Frederick Buechner quotes (American Author, b.1926)

Typical misunderstanding of what it means to be an atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in god. Most atheists wouldn't claim to know 100% whether or not there actually IS a god.

But either way - it's not the same to believe in something that has no evidence whatsoever of its existence and to not believe in something that has no evidence whatsoever of its existence. Only one of those requires a leap of faith.

Adam W I have prayed for your soul and God understands you even if you don't really believe in him.  :D

Thanks Dude!

Your Welcome.  ;)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 28, 2012, 01:47:04 PM

Quote from: Adam W on October 28, 2012, 01:20:59 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 28, 2012, 01:06:55 PM
“[A true atheist is one who is willing to face the full consequences of what it means to say there is no God. Given some of what we treat as religion, this is a significant commitment. The bottom line is that] ... many an atheist is a believer without knowing it. You can sincerely believe there is no God and live as though there is. You can sincerely believe there is a God and live as though there isn't. So it goes ... ... Wishful Thinking.”
Frederick Buechner quotes (American Author, b.1926)

Typical misunderstanding of what it means to be an atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in god. Most atheists wouldn't claim to know 100% whether or not there actually IS a god.

But either way - it's not the same to believe in something that has no evidence whatsoever of its existence and to not believe in something that has no evidence whatsoever of its existence. Only one of those requires a leap of faith.

Adam W I have prayed for your soul and God understands you even if you don't really believe in him.  :D

You sound just as insane as Scott looks in your avatar.

Quote from: ben says on October 28, 2012, 02:41:13 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 28, 2012, 01:47:04 PM

Quote from: Adam W on October 28, 2012, 01:20:59 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 28, 2012, 01:06:55 PM
“[A true atheist is one who is willing to face the full consequences of what it means to say there is no God. Given some of what we treat as religion, this is a significant commitment. The bottom line is that] ... many an atheist is a believer without knowing it. You can sincerely believe there is no God and live as though there is. You can sincerely believe there is a God and live as though there isn't. So it goes ... ... Wishful Thinking.”
Frederick Buechner quotes (American Author, b.1926)

Typical misunderstanding of what it means to be an atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in god. Most atheists wouldn't claim to know 100% whether or not there actually IS a god.

But either way - it's not the same to believe in something that has no evidence whatsoever of its existence and to not believe in something that has no evidence whatsoever of its existence. Only one of those requires a leap of faith.

Adam W I have prayed for your soul and God understands you even if you don't really believe in him.  :D

You sound just as insane as Scott looks in your avatar.

Ben says not much for a man without a soul. I have blessed you also my son and may God forgive you because I have already.  ;)

Quote from: ben says on October 28, 2012, 02:41:13 PM
You sound just as insane as Scott looks in your avatar.

You can't reason with crazy, or with a group that holds ignorance as a virtue:
"The lord know that the thoughts of the wise are futile" - Corinthians

The following are some scientist's views concerning the idea of god and spirituality.  I chose these from a few others because they are so close to my thinking, and the thinking of some others on MJ.  Some of these are quite beautiful.     

“What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science.  In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began.  This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.”      Stephen Hawking.

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."     Carl Sagan.

"Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time".     Isaac Asimov.

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."     Albert Einstein.

"In my view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining...I maintain that faith in this world is perfectly possible without faith in another world."     Rosalind Franklin.

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand."     Richard Feynman.

"The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism. Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things."     Richard Dawkins.

"Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor - but they have few followers now".      Arthur C. Clarke.

"With pantheism...the deity is associated with the order of nature or the universe itself...when modern scientists such as Einstein and Stephen Hawking mention 'God' in their writing, this is what they seem to mean: that God is Nature."     Victor J. Stenger.

...this is what they seem to mean

...but they have few followers now

...In my view, all that is necessary for faith

...Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced

...I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect

...This doesn’t prove that there is no God

Hardly the stuff one would want to depend on in a court of law, but some will depend on in the court of eternity.

BEN SAYS, just a heads up, because of the highly charged nature of this discussion, please refrain from name calling.  ;)

Quote from: Ocklawaha on October 30, 2012, 09:23:03 AM
Hardly the stuff one would want to depend on in a court of law, but some will depend on in the court of eternity.

Or, ya know, there is no eternity, or a court in front of which we are judged.
And if there is a court where the sentence is eternal punishment for discrete acts of evil committed in a finite lifetime, one made possible by the judge for the sole purpose of judging us, is that really a court system that you want to be tried in? Cognitive dissonance is the only way to believe in a good and just god who also forces us to take an ~80 year test where failure results in eternal damnation.

"I want you to hear me tonight, I am not saying that President Obama is the Antichrist, I am not saying that at all. One reason I know he's not the Antichrist is the Antichrist is going to have much higher poll numbers when he comes. President Obama is not the Antichrist."

The above statement is from Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas. 
I sleep easier now, knowing the Southern Baptists have determined that Obama is not the Antichrist.

"I want you to hear me tonight, I am not saying that President Obama is the Antichrist, I am not saying that at all. One reason I know he's not the Antichrist is the Antichrist is going to have much higher poll numbers when he comes," said Jeffress.

"President Obama is not the Antichrist. But what I am saying is this: the course he is choosing to lead our nation is paving the way for the future reign of the Antichrist."

Jeffress would go on to say that "it is time for Christians to stand up and to push back against this evil that is overtaking our nation" and to do so via "the ballot box."

This is not the first time that Jeffress has garnered controversy for his remarks regarding major political figures. During the Family Research Council's "Values Voters Summit" in October of last year, Jeffress called Mormonism a cult.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/texas-megachurch-pastor-says-obama-will-pave-way-for-antichrist-84639/#PI36TgMkyacfr2eJ.99
"Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. Even though he talks about Jesus as his Lord and savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult," said Jeffress, who was supporting Texas Gov. Rick Perry's bid to become the GOP presidential nominee.

"It's a little hypocritical for the last eight years to be talking about how important it is for us to elect a Christian president and then turn around and endorse a non-Christian."

Jeffress' remarks received much criticism, both for his refusal to vote for someone over their religious beliefs and because in the opinions of some there had been a different understanding as to what the word "cult" meant in the context Jeffress was using.

In an editorial for The Christian Post, Dr. Richard Land noted the disparity between how Jeffress used the word "cult" and how the public perceived it.

"The problem is that while Mormonism may technically be a cult theologically, in that it has moved well beyond the parameters of orthodox, apostle's creed Trinitarian Christianity, it does not behave as a cult culturally or socially," wrote Land.

"Most people would tell you that Mormons are solid citizens and among the nicest and most moral people they know."

Despite the statements made at the VVS in October, as Romney gained the nomination Jeffress proceeded to voice his support for the Mormon candidate.

"I haven't changed my tune … In fact, I never said Christians should not vote for Mitt Romney. When I talked about his theology," said Jeffress in an interview with Fox News.

"I still maintain there are vast differences in theology between Mormons and Christians, but we do share many of the same values, like the sanctity of life and religious freedom."

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/texas-megachurch-pastor-says-obama-will-pave-way-for-antichrist-84639/#PI36TgMkyacfr2eJ.99

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on November 12, 2012, 11:35:14 AM
"I want you to hear me tonight, I am not saying that President Obama is the Antichrist, I am not saying that at all. One reason I know he's not the Antichrist is the Antichrist is going to have much higher poll numbers when he comes."

LOVE how the Antichrist is now being vetted via exit polls.

I wonder if there's a committee out there arguing somewhere over whether to use the popular vote or the electoral college to begin calling each state in favor of the Antichrist.

Quote from: KenFSU on November 12, 2012, 12:35:37 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on November 12, 2012, 11:35:14 AM
"I want you to hear me tonight, I am not saying that President Obama is the Antichrist, I am not saying that at all. One reason I know he's not the Antichrist is the Antichrist is going to have much higher poll numbers when he comes."

LOVE how the Antichrist is now being vetted via exit polls.

I wonder if there's a committee out there arguing somewhere over whether to use the popular vote or the electoral college to begin calling each state in favor of the Antichrist.

Could Be?

Which ever side of the fence your own, some of you might have a serious curiosity about the difference in Romney's faith and your local First Baptist, Methodist, Catholic... etc. Church.

While this might fly right past many in our friendly atheist community, LDS or MORMON doctrine is foreign to orthodox Christian teachings, to wit:

Quote“The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand counsellors sat at the head in yonder heavens, and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at that time… In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.” (Journal of Discourses 6:5).

QuoteGod is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. . . . Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 26). Because we are the spiritual children of our heavenly parents, we have inherited the potential to develop their divine qualities. (Gospel Principles, 1997, p. 11)

QuoteAccording to LDS doctrine, the two oldest sons of God were Jesus and Lucifer. Lucifer convinced one-third of his brothers and sisters to join him in rebellion and were expelled from Heaven (see Gospel Principles, chapter 3 . The other two-thirds became the humans born on our earth. This doctrine is mainly drawn from Joseph Smith's revelations in the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price.

So when Doctor Land made the following statement, he was absolutely spot on.

"The problem is that while Mormonism may technically be a cult theologically, in that it has moved well beyond the parameters of orthodox, apostle's creed Trinitarian Christianity, it does not behave as a cult culturally or socially," wrote Land."

BINGO!

My goodness, 3,500 churches closing each year?  Hmmmmm.  Perhaps more people are beginning to see the truths about churchin and preachin and power and greed and superstition and lying.

In Kentucky, a law requires the state's Office of Homeland Security to post a plaque recognizing the power of the Almighty God--and violating this law could result in 12 months in prison.

full article:

http://www.alternet.org/belief/year-jail-not-believing-god-how-kentucky-persecuting-atheists

(http://i.imgur.com/21lBUKj.jpg)

Christianity..Judaism..Mormon..aren't they all cults?

Quote from: Garden guy on August 05, 2013, 10:24:43 PM
Christianity..Judaism..Mormon..aren't they all cults?

Nope

There will come a time in the far future, if the majority of mankind, through evolution and education, gains in intellect and awareness of the world about them, when anyone who preaches or proselytizes their belief in some kind of a personal all powerful god, especially of the kind supposedly revealed to mankind via one of the individuals who emerged from a wilderness or desert, when that preacher will be considered to be suspect, if not partially insane, for his or her behavior, just as we consider those today who seriously admit their genuine belief in, and conduct their daily lives based on, witches, warlocks, zombies, and vampires.   

Quote from: Garden guy on August 05, 2013, 10:24:43 PM
Christianity..Judaism..Mormon..aren't they all cults?

Yes

Quote from: ronchamblin on August 06, 2013, 03:39:01 AM
There will come a time in the far future, if the majority of mankind, through evolution and education, gains in intellect and awareness of the world about them, when anyone who preaches or proselytizes their belief in some kind of a personal all powerful god, especially of the kind supposedly revealed to mankind via one of the individuals who emerged from a wilderness or desert, when that preacher will be considered to be suspect, if not partially insane, for his or her behavior, just as we consider those today who seriously admit their genuine belief in, and conduct their daily lives based on, witches, warlocks, zombies, and vampires.   

Double yes!

Quote from: ben says on August 06, 2013, 08:57:55 AM

Quote from: Garden guy on August 05, 2013, 10:24:43 PM
Christianity..Judaism..Mormon..aren't they all cults?

Yes

Quote from: ronchamblin on August 06, 2013, 03:39:01 AM
There will come a time in the far future, if the majority of mankind, through evolution and education, gains in intellect and awareness of the world about them, when anyone who preaches or proselytizes their belief in some kind of a personal all powerful god, especially of the kind supposedly revealed to mankind via one of the individuals who emerged from a wilderness or desert, when that preacher will be considered to be suspect, if not partially insane, for his or her behavior, just as we consider those today who seriously admit their genuine belief in, and conduct their daily lives based on, witches, warlocks, zombies, and vampires.   

Double yes!

I feel sorry for all of you Non-Believers, but all you have to do is ask God for Forgiveness and he will Welcome you into the kingdom of Heaven. Amen  :)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 06, 2013, 11:09:19 AM
I feel sorry for all of you Non-Believers, but all you have to do is ask God for Forgiveness and he will Welcome you into the kingdom of Heaven. Amen  :)

Thank you for following the example of Jesus Christ!

I think the title of this thread should be "The Zombie Thread".  It keeps dying and resurrecting itself much to my chagrin. Guess it needs to be buried deeper.  lol

I know it is Stephen.  Which was what I meant by the "Zombie" analogy. This particular one seems to have devolved into a few snipes now and then which to me is akin to having my brain's eaten away at. lol The other threads seem to have kept some degree of conversational value.

Quote from: stephendare on August 15, 2013, 04:49:12 PM

Quote from: Cheshire Cat on August 15, 2013, 04:46:55 PM
I think the title of this thread should be "The Zombie Thread".  It keeps dying and resurrecting itself much to my chagrin. Guess it needs to be buried deeper.  lol

This is a regular feature on MJ, Diane.  We have conversations (not just threads) that have been going on for more than seven years

Overall, I suspect the conversation about belief and religion is a good one, as it just might move more people to think for themselves... critically about what is offered by churches, religions, television, and politicians.  Read the beginning of the below article... the link following.  Some of it is about me and other atheists, and about some of you. ;)

Title: Does it Matter that Athiests are smarter than believers?  Author: Rob Brooks, Evolutionary Biologist


News just in, guaranteed to stir smug nods from non-believers and incite irritation among the devout: intelligence correlates negatively with religious belief. You may have seen similar - or contradictory -- reports in the past. That's because scores of studies have asked if religiosity is associated with intelligence. But a just-published meta-analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Review considered the evidence from 63 different studies. Overall, the meta analysis establishes the existence of a "reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity".

University of Rochester psychologists Miron Zuckerman and Jordan Silberman, together with Judtih A. Hall from Boston's Northeastern University, gathered 80 years of published studies that estimate correlations between religious belief or behavior (like attendance at religious services) and intelligence. By intelligence, they mean analytic intelligence, also known as the g-factor, which captures the "ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience." Only 2 of the 63 studies found statistically significant positive correlations between religiosity and intelligence, whereas 35 showed significant negative correlations.

Intelligence linked more tightly to religious belief than religious behavior. While some studies showed that smarter children were less likely to believe, the pattern was weakest among school-age subjects. The links grow stronger in adulthood and remained strong at older ages. Intelligence at one age also predicted religiosity some years later -- an additional indication that intelligence shapes religiosity.

Here, then, is one of those thorny issues, guaranteed to stir circular discussion. It confirms what many atheists and agnostics have always felt -- that the mere flexing of one's intellectual fibres, particularly when accompanied by the scientific method, leads a great many smart people from the path of religious belief.

And yet the finding, and the very act of me writing this column, drips with confrontational implications. Does the fact that non-believers are, on average, more intelligent than believers also imply that the religious are all low-g? Or that believers are inferior?

Of course not. The ranges overlap, and many very smart people are, or profess outwardly to be, believers. And I'm sure most people know some rather dull atheists or agnostics, too.

Remaining Article:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-brooks/atheists-smarter-than-believers_b_3751796.html

Thanks Stephen. I read the article earlier.

But, just for your info, and I think it's true, my goal is not, nor has it ever been, to be wealthy.  I've come to realize that what is desirable and good in life is not tied to one's wealth, although one's resources can influence one's relative comfort and stress level.  I cannot allow myself to waste energy and time to gain wealth, although I must exert whatever is necessary to survive while in business. 

As you've no doubt determined, the good things in life are free, and simplicity, as much as possible and when appropriate, is to be sought in all things. 

The filthy, obscenely rich?  The one percent?  These political and corporate thugs and thieves in America tenaciously hold to power, and apparently are happy only if they have millions..... billions of dollars.  Let them have the billions.  The problem is that these leeches on our society, during the process of gaining and maintaining those millions and billions, destroy the economy for the average fellow.... the workers..... the middle class.  This is not acceptable.  I expect that, before too much longer, if the inequality continues to increase, as the jobs continue to disappear for the middle class, there will be a reckoning.         

Don't know of Elon Musk.  And I think, in spite of what some say, Einstein was very close to being, if not, an atheist.

Egypt: Islamists Hit Coptic Christian Churches, Torch Franciscan School

CAIRO — After torching a Franciscan school, Islamists paraded three nuns on the streets like "prisoners of war" before a Muslim woman offered them refuge. Two other women working at the school were sexually harassed and abused as they fought their way through a mob.

In the four days since security forces cleared two sit-in camps by supporters of Egypt's ousted president, Islamists have attacked dozens of Coptic churches along with homes and businesses owned by the Christian minority. The campaign of intimidation appears to be a warning to Christians outside Cairo to stand down from political activism.

Christians have long suffered from discrimination and violence in Muslim majority Egypt, where they make up 10 percent of the population of 90 million. Attacks increased after the Islamists rose to power in the wake of the 2011 Arab Spring uprising that drove Hosni Mubarak from power, emboldening extremists. But Christians have come further under fire since President Mohammed Morsi was ousted on July 3, sparking a wave of Islamist anger led by Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood.

Nearly 40 churches have been looted and torched, while 23 others have been attacked and heavily damaged since Wednesday, when chaos erupted after Egypt's military-backed interim administration moved in to clear two camps packed with protesters calling for Morsi's reinstatement, killing scores of protesters and sparking deadly clashes nationwide.

One of the world's oldest Christian communities has generally kept a low-profile, but has become more politically active since Mubarak was ousted and Christians sought to ensure fair treatment in the aftermath.

Many Morsi supporters say Christians played a disproportionately large role in the days of mass rallies, with millions demanding that he step down ahead of the coup.

Despite the violence, Egypt's Coptic Christian church renewed its commitment to the new political order Friday, saying in a statement that it stood by the army and the police in their fight against "the armed violent groups and black terrorism."

While the Christians of Egypt have endured attacks by extremists, they have drawn closer to moderate Muslims in some places, in a rare show of solidarity.

Hundreds from both communities thronged two monasteries in the province of Bani Suef south of Cairo to thwart what they had expected to be imminent attacks on Saturday, local activist Girgis Waheeb said. Activists reported similar examples elsewhere in regions south of Cairo, but not enough to provide effective protection of churches and monasteries........

Full article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/17/christians-in-egypt_n_3773991.html

Too much suffering and killing.  What a waste of human decency and life.  Beliefs in religions are older than civilization.  When will more people cease to believe in revealed religious systems which not only have no evidence to support them, but systems which ultimately cause more harm and suffering than good?     

Religion anyone?  It depends on where you live, but the major cost these days seems to be only a little suffering and a few deaths occasionally... and maybe a little time and money.

Personally I think the horrible events in Egypt are actually motivated by the politically overzealous whom are using "religion" as a cover. But as long as there is human life, there will always be some form of spiritual connection. It's purely human nature to explain the unexplainable and sometimes only religion can do that, until science disproves or corroborates, also we all need hope at some point and religion fills that void for most.

Quote from: JayBird on August 18, 2013, 08:38:41 PM
Personally I think the horrible events in Egypt are actually motivated by the politically overzealous whom are using "religion" as a cover. But as long as there is human life, there will always be some form of spiritual connection. It's purely human nature to explain the unexplainable and sometimes only religion can do that, until science disproves or corroborates, also we all need hope at some point and religion fills that void for most.

+1000  ;)

Makes good sense JayBird.

There seems to be a weighing or balancing process of the good and bad consequences of believing, as man does indeed have spiritual needs.  And humans sometimes need help during trying times.... help which can often be found in belief in various religions. 

I find myself wanting to occasionally remind people of some of the bad consequences of belief, so that they don't get too deeply lost in the imagined or real good of it.

And I agree that in any conflict such as that in Egypt there are "several" dynamics causing havoc, only one being religious.

I will never give up on God. He has never given up on me. I truly feel sorry for the non-believers. Because right before my death I will be at peace with myself, and my soul heading to heaven. And to the Non-Believers you too can be saved by just saying this prayer "Lord Jesus in heaven, I recognize that I am a sinner. I need You in my life. Thank you for dying on the cross for me. Forgive me. I accept you as my savior and Lord. Guide me, lead me, inspire me to be the person you want me to be. Show me how to follow in Your steps. Through Jesus' name I pray. Amen."

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 18, 2013, 11:15:53 PM
I will never give up on God. He has never given up on me. I truly feel sorry for the non-believers. Because right before my death I will be at peace with myself, and my soul heading to heaven. And to the Non-Believers you too can be saved by just saying this prayer "Lord Jesus in heaven, I recognize that I am a sinner. I need You in my life. Thank you for dying on the cross for me. Forgive me. I accept you as my savior and Lord. Guide me, lead me, inspire me to be the person you want me to be. Show me how to follow in Your steps. Through Jesus' name I pray. Amen."

I understand where you are coming from IILY.  I can't go there.  Keep on truckin.  In the end, in some fashion, part of you and me will meet, after returning to the mother earth from which we came, after mixing with matter formerly used by others.  Part of us will meet as rearranged and recycled matter somewhere in the universe, to be mixed and perhaps borrowed again for a spell by other living creatures.  We are all made up of recycled matter, borrowed for an average of 80 years or so from the universe.   

Quote from: ronchamblin on August 19, 2013, 12:06:33 AM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on August 18, 2013, 11:15:53 PM
I will never give up on God. He has never given up on me. I truly feel sorry for the non-believers. Because right before my death I will be at peace with myself, and my soul heading to heaven. And to the Non-Believers you too can be saved by just saying this prayer "Lord Jesus in heaven, I recognize that I am a sinner. I need You in my life. Thank you for dying on the cross for me. Forgive me. I accept you as my savior and Lord. Guide me, lead me, inspire me to be the person you want me to be. Show me how to follow in Your steps. Through Jesus' name I pray. Amen."

I understand where you are coming from IILY.  I can't go there.  Keep on truckin.  In the end, in some fashion, part of you and me will meet, after returning to the mother earth from which we came, after mixing with matter formerly used by others.  Part of us will meet as rearranged and recycled matter somewhere in the universe, to be mixed and perhaps borrowed again for a spell by other living creatures.  We are all made up of recycled matter, borrowed for an average of 80 years or so from the universe.

You're right my body will blend back into the earth. But my soul will be in heaven with Jesus.  ;)

Found this article on Slate.com... via Huffington Post.  The issue has been brought up on this forum occasionally. I'll have to think more about the idea of taxing churches before I arrive at opinion.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/22/churches_should_be_taxed_then_everyone_can_speak.html

We Should Be Taxing Churches by Matthew Yglesias

Amelia Thomson-Deveaux has a great piece about religious groups that are trying to remove restrictions on church-based electioneering. She suggests that rather than gutting the rules, there's a simple fix, "Religious leaders who want the liberty to endorse candidates can give up their churches' tax deduction."

I would go one further. Let's tax churches! All of them, in a non-discriminatory way that doesn't consider faith or creed or level of political engagement. There's simply no good reason to be giving large tax subsidies to the Church of Scientology or the Diocese of San Diego or Temple Rodef Shalom in Virginia or the John Wesley African Methodist Episcopal Zion church around the corner from me. Whichever faith you think is the one true faith, it's undeniable that the majority of this church-spending is going to support false doctrines. Under the circumstances, tax subsidies for religion are highly inefficient.

What's more, even insofar as tax subsidies do target the true faith they're still a pretty bad idea. The basic problem with subsidized religion is that there's no reason to believe that religion-related expenditures enhance productivity. When a factory spends more money on plant and equipment then it can produce more goods per worker. But soul-saving doesn't really work this way. Upgrading a church's physical plant doesn't enhance the soul-saving capacity of its clergy. You just get a nicer building or a grander Christmas pageant. There's nothing wrong with that. When I was young I always enjoyed the Grace Church Christmas pageant. But this is just a kind of private entertainment (comparable to spending money on snacks for your book club—and indeed what are Bible study groups but the original book clubs?) that doesn't need an implicit subsidiy.

Meanwhile, nobody thinks churches and other religious institutions should silence themselves on the important issues of the day. On the contrary, discussing moral action is at the heart of many religious enterprises. And much moral action plays itself out in the arena of politics. So trying to say that churches should get subsidy when they don't endorse candidates is de facto a kind of subsidy to religious doctrines whose views happen to lack strong partisan implications. So if your faith says "abortion should be illegal and spending on the poor should be increased and it's too bad neither candidate supports that" you're golden, but if your faith says "abortion should be legal and spending on the poor should be increased so good for Barack Obama" suddenly you're in trouble. That's perverse. Just make everyone pay taxes.

Ive been a proponent of taxing business...a church is a business like any other business..it a haven to hide money ...their bible tells them a rich man will not enter their heaven.

And think of all the good that could have been done if 90% of the money that came into churches actually went to help instead of paying for those lighthouses..building and salaries...now that would be something special...im an athiest but my grand father was a church of god minister for 60 years and never got paid

Quote from: Garden guy on August 24, 2013, 09:33:02 AM
And think of all the good that could have been done if 90% of the money that came into churches actually went to help instead of paying for those lighthouses..building and salaries...now that would be something special...im an athiest but my grand father was a church of god minister for 60 years and never got paid

Your Grand Father did get paid he is in Heaven this was his reward. ;)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/09/08/220450752/science-v-religion-let-s-be-civil?utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=nprfacebook  ( click link for full article)

Quote

A few years ago, over dinner, a friend and fellow academic "came out" to me as a theist.

The conversation later struck me as quite funny. Only in my exotic academic enclave, I thought to myself, would two Americans have a conversation in which the Christian theist "came out" to the atheist Jew. In most American communities, my beliefs would be the anomalies, to be revealed selectively and with caution.

A few weeks ago, writer Virginia Heffernan made a similar in a post at Yahoo! News:

    "At heart, I am a creationist. There, I said it. At least you, dear readers, won't now storm out of a restaurant like the last person I admitted that to. In New York City saying you're a creationist is like confessing you think Ahmadinejad has a couple of good points. Maybe I'm the only creationist I know."

The response was characterized in The New York Times as "." One blogger described Heffernan's post as a "." Among the on Yahoo! News were charges of being "intellectually vapid" and offering "the intellectual equivalent of a ditry [sic] bomb."

Of course, the vitriol goes both ways; it isn't just believers who sometimes face a hostile reception when they voice their beliefs. and face in various forms, some of it "."

Issues about science and religion have become so politicized and polarizing that it's hard to find public forums in which people with different commitments can meaningfully engage in discussion and debate. You know, respectful conversations, ones in which we interpret each other charitably and don't simply assume that those who disagree with us are foolish, immoral or just plain stupid.

I'm not arguing for a middle ground in which we all compromise. The best position isn't necessarily the one in the middle, or the one that wins by majority vote. But I do think we need a "charitable ground," if you will — some shared territory in which we recognize that other people's religious and scientific commitments can be as deeply felt and deeply reasoned as our own, and that there's value in understanding why others believe what they do

AlterNet / By Amanda Marcotte 
Are Religious People More Depressed?
A new study finds a high correlation between religiosity and depression.

September 19, 2013     
While non-religious people tend to reject religion because they find the evidence for a supernatural deity unconvincing, a new study shows that rejecting religion can be good not just logically, but emotionally.

While previous studies had suggested some emotional and social value to being religious, a new study that examined a huge number of people from around the world discovered that being religious is a risk factor for depression.  As explained by the Huffington Post, over 8,000 people from different countries from the UK to Chile, had their levels of religiosity measured. The study covered various economic and social groups and looked at the relationship between religiosity and depression.

The researchers found that religious people were more prone to depression, with rates of developing depression in places like the United Kingdom being three times as high for believers than non-believers. Studies like this are merely measuring risk factors and not necessarily suggesting a causal relationship so much as suggesting to clinicians traits to look out for when determining a patient's chances of developing depression. However, the fact that the finding was both cross- and intra-cultural suggests that there may be more going on here than a simple correlation.

Is there anything about religion that might make people more prone to depression? Or is it that people who are prone to depression are more likely to be religious?

The latter is certainly an intriguing possibility. It would make a lot of sense if people who are prone to depression find themselves drawn to religion, precisely because it offers the kind of hope depressed people often find difficult to muster by themselves. This is particularly true when one considers how religion imagines hope as a thing external to the believer. All the believer is required to do is believe and follow a set of rules, religions like Christianity promise, and they will go to heaven.

Depression is described as a state where the sufferer experiences "feelings of helplessness, hopelessness and worthlessness and of being out of control." Depressed people have a hard time looking on the bright side of life, and muscling up that optimism that allows non-depressed people to feel confident in their ability to go out and conquer the world. It's not a coincidence that religion offers exactly what is missing in a depressed person's life.

Take Christianity, for instance. It promises that God loves you, that he has a unique plan for you, that you can exert control over your life through prayer and good works, and that even if things are bleak now, there is a promise of another life beyond where things are perfect. If you can work yourself into believing it, that might sound very much like a cure, especially if you're not aware the feelings you're suffering are clinical depression—which is a common dilemma for people suffering it.

Certainly there's some reason to believe that if society protects people against some of the worst causes of depression, such as the fear of falling into poverty, that society will have more atheists in it.  Stable, egalitarian societies repeatedly prove to be places where the atheist message takes off really well. We know that on a national level, if people feel like they have control over their lives and there's hope in the here and now, those nations tend to have more atheists. So why wouldn't that be true on an individual level?

Most atheists, including myself, like to believe we came to the conclusion that religion is not true and that there are no gods simply through rigor and logic. What this study may suggest, however, is that we're underestimating the role our emotional states play in making us at least willing to hear atheist arguments. When you feel good about yourself, you're less likely to need to hear there's a God who does the loving of you for you. If you feel hope about tomorrow, the promise of heaven isn't quite as tempting—or you're less likely to be perturbed at the idea of death being forever if the life you're living today is pretty good. If you feel you have some control over your life, you're not going to see any need to beg a supernatural being to intercede on your behalf.


Interesting little article on depression as related to religion.  Cheer up everyone.   ;D

And the rest of the story left out why?

For those of us who want to both help people leave religion and improve the public image of atheists, this understanding of why religion so often appeals to people is critical. Instead of being angry with religious people for believing, it's useful to consider that the hope that religion offers might seem like a lifeline to people who are hurting badly, and ask if there's anything atheists can do to offer similar kinds of hope.

Indeed, one major advantage atheists have on their side is that there's no reason to believe that religion alone is actually helping people. After all, religious people have higher rates of depression, suggesting that while they may hope religion will make them feel better, it's often not working.

Luckily, more atheists are beginning to take seriously the idea that atheist activists need to be talking more about mental health, and reaching out to people who have mental health issues and getting them the evidence-based help they need. Some atheists, like Greta Christina and JT Eberhard have opened up about their own struggles with mental illness. Instead of offering prayer and heaven as answers, they point their audiences to more proven methods for getting help, such as therapy and the use of medication under a doctor's supervision. Indeed, atheists are uniquely able to speak to the issue of getting help for depression, because they can speak directly about the environmental and biological causes without getting bogged down in talking about spirituality.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/20/are_religious_people_more_depressed_partner/singleton/

Are atheists mentally ill?

By Sean Thomas Religion Last updated: August 14th, 2013

Thanks to a couple of surveys, it's being put about in certain circles that atheists have higher IQs than believers. That may or may not be the case, but one problem with this argument is that, if you accept "average group differences in IQ", you get into all sorts of sinister debates which bien pensant atheist Lefties might find less to their liking.

So let's not go down that unhappy road. Let's dispense with the crude metric of IQ and look at the actual lives led by atheists, and believers, and see how they measure up. In other words: let's see who is living more intelligently.

And guess what: it's the believers. A vast body of research, amassed over recent decades, shows that religious belief is physically and psychologically beneficial – to a remarkable degree.

In 2004, scholars at UCLA revealed that college students involved in religious activities are likely to have better mental health. In 2006, population researchers at the University of Texas discovered that the more often you go to church, the longer you live. In the same year researchers at Duke University in America discovered that religious people have stronger immune systems than the irreligious. They also established that churchgoers have lower blood pressure.

Meanwhile in 2009 a team of Harvard psychologists discovered that believers who checked into hospital with broken hips reported less depression, had shorter hospital stays, and could hobble further when they left hospital – as compared to their similarly crippled but heathen fellow-sufferers.

The list goes on. In the last few years scientists have revealed that believers, compared to non-believers, have better outcomes from breast cancer, coronary disease, mental illness, Aids, and rheumatoid arthritis. Believers even get better results from IVF. Likewise, believers also report greater levels of happiness, are less likely to commit suicide, and cope with stressful events much better. Believers also have more kids.

What's more, these benefits are visible even if you adjust for the fact that believers are less likely to smoke, drink or take drugs. And let's not forget that religious people are nicer. They certainly give more money to charity than atheists, who are, according to the very latest survey, the meanest of all.

So which is the smart party, here? Is it the atheists, who live short, selfish, stunted little lives – often childless – before they approach hopeless death in despair, and their worthless corpses are chucked in a trench (or, if they are wrong, they go to Hell)? Or is it the believers, who live longer, happier, healthier, more generous lives, and who have more kids, and who go to their quietus with ritual dignity, expecting to be greeted by a smiling and benevolent God?

Obviously, it's the believers who are smarter. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally ill.

And I mean that literally: the evidence today implies that atheism is a form of mental illness. And this is because science is showing that the human mind is hard-wired for faith: we have, as a species, evolved to believe, which is one crucial reason why believers are happier – religious people have all their faculties intact, they are fully functioning humans.

Therefore, being an atheist – lacking the vital faculty of faith – should be seen as an affliction, and a tragic deficiency:  something akin to blindness. Which makes Richard Dawkins the intellectual equivalent of an amputee, furiously waving his stumps in the air, boasting that he has no hands.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100231060/are-atheists-mentally-ill/

IILY ... I offered the post 185 because I thought it interesting.  As for your last offering via Sean Thomas ....Thank you for your interest and attention to it. I would like to respond but don't have the time at present, and doubt if I ever will... considering the extremes in thought labor to which I would have to go in order to make an impact upon a mind obviously cultivated and shaped for decades by a religious system which, by its very nature, is protected from any intrusions of truth.   

Quote from: ronchamblin on September 22, 2013, 08:11:16 AM
IILY ... I offered the post 185 because I thought it interesting.  As for your last offering via Sean Thomas ....Thank you for your interest and attention to it. I would like to respond but don't have the time at present, and doubt if I ever will... considering the extremes in thought labor to which I would have to go in order to make an impact upon a mind obviously cultivated and shaped for decades by a religious system which, by its very nature, is protected from any intrusions of truth.   

RC you made me smile and laugh when you talked about "intrusions of truth?" I believe in God and you will never be-able to change my "mind obviously cultivated and shaped for decades by a religious system." Amen  ;)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 22, 2013, 10:33:30 AM

Quote from: ronchamblin on September 22, 2013, 08:11:16 AM
IILY ... I offered the post 185 because I thought it interesting.  As for your last offering via Sean Thomas ....Thank you for your interest and attention to it. I would like to respond but don't have the time at present, and doubt if I ever will... considering the extremes in thought labor to which I would have to go in order to make an impact upon a mind obviously cultivated and shaped for decades by a religious system which, by its very nature, is protected from any intrusions of truth.   

RC you made me smile and laugh when you talked about "intrusions of truth?" I believe in God and you will never be-able to change my "mind obviously cultivated and shaped for decades by a religious system." Amen  ;)

Absolutely.  I agree that there is not enough time remaining in your life to change your thinking from Christianity, as you've been taught apparently from birth, beginning perhaps with your first babysitter, the myths and stories of the 2,000 year old revealed religious system.  Within your mind, embedded throughout the deep molecular and neuronal structures of memory, along with the first children's stories conveyed by caring adults, are the symbols, stories, hopes, and myths of Christianity.  The latter, because of the comfort and mental stability given to you, has over decades grown stronger within, and therefore has become less vulnerable to the onslaughts of any truths offered by science, or any truths of nature or common sense. 

In some measure, I envy your happiness, as you are set for life, apparently satisfied to end your days within the world of Christianity.  I wish you increasing comfort and mental stability as you progress through life .... a stability buttressed by your ignorance of many truths around you.  But.... not to worry.... as mankind is fortunate that you and most of your fellow believers in the myths of Christianity, are not like some Muslims who are able, in their passion to believe, to interpret scripture so as to find cause to inflict suffering or death upon those who do not believe as they do.     

^ Joke, right?

Quote from: ben says on September 23, 2013, 08:17:54 AM
^ Joke, right?

^ Joke, No! Ben says you could accept God into your heart and be just as free as I am. Amen  ;)

Stephen Hawking Says 'There Is No God,' Confirms He's An Atheist.

Stephen Hawking says he's an atheist, arguing that science offers a "more convincing explanation" for the origins of the universe and that the miracles of religion "aren't compatible" with scientific fact.

"Before we understood science, it was natural to believe that God created the universe, but now science offers a more convincing explanation," the celebrated physicist said in a video posted by Spanish newspaper El Mundo. "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is we would know everything that God would know if there was a God, but there isn't. I'm an atheist."

Hawking's remarks came in response to a question from El Mundo journalist Pablo Jauregui, who quizzed Hawking about his religious leanings in the lead-up to this week's Starmus Festival in the Canary Islands. The "mind of God" reference was Hawking's effort to clarify a passage in his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time," in which he wrote that scientists would "know the mind of God" if a unifying set of scientific principles known colloquially as the theory of everything were discovered.

As NBC News reported, this isn't the first time Hawking has spoken about his religious beliefs.

In 2011, he told The Guardian that he didn't believe in a heaven or an afterlife, calling it "a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." In 2007, he told the BBC that he was "not religious in the normal sense," adding, "I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/25/stephen-hawking-atheist_n_5882860.html


See.  I've been right all along.  The argument's over.  Done with.

Your nonsense ... disappointing me?  Certainly not.  It was expected.

I suggest you might consider the range and depth of this fellow's thinking, to give it some weight, and to perhaps consider his opinion that the god that millions have believed exists ... does not.  Certainly this fellow ... leading much of the scientific thinking in physics for decades, should be considered when he offers an opinion about something as important as the problem of the existence or the non-existence of the god that has consumed and confused mankind's thoughts for so many centuries.

If there is a god i want nothing to do with he or it..all powerfull..all knowing all being and allows such suffering and madnes..what a dick...as ive said since my accention from childish ignorance...a god was created as a coping mmechanism for the early man..it worked..survival is dependent upon not being alone....hence..of course there must be someone overseeing us all...im a humanist...i think its a shame that we dont revel in the fact we arent fleas or cockroaches...lol...prefrontal cortexes are awesome.

Quote from: Rob68 on September 26, 2014, 10:27:20 PM
If there is a god i want nothing to do with he or it..all powerfull..all knowing all being and allows such suffering and madnes..what a dick...as ive said since my accention from childish ignorance...a god was created as a coping mmechanism for the early man..it worked..survival is dependent upon not being alone....hence..of course there must be someone overseeing us all...im a humanist...i think its a shame that we dont revel in the fact we arent fleas or cockroaches...lol...prefrontal cortexes are awesome.

To be disrespectful to the individuals and communities of the past centuries who have, as a consequence of their ignorance of the sciences, and their fear of the powers of nature, sought comfort and direction in believing in a god of some kind, is not my wish.

My wish is to offer the opinion that to continue belief in a god at this time in the history of thought and knowledge should be questioned -- because to continue belief and promote belief will perpetuate the conflicts we see year after year throughout the world .. conflicts often born of these same religious beliefs. 

Beliefs in a god of such great power that he or she will somehow give approval to most any insane assumption or behavior will continue to promote a scenario suggesting individuals depend on a god, when they should depend on themselves ... a scenario suggesting that some spirit is responsible, when they themselves should be responsible.

Quote from: stephendare on September 27, 2014, 05:10:49 PM

Quote from: ronchamblin on September 26, 2014, 10:14:42 PM
Your nonsense ... disappointing me?  Certainly not.  It was expected.

I suggest you might consider the range and depth of this fellow's thinking, to give it some weight, and to perhaps consider his opinion that the god that millions have believed exists ... does not.  Certainly this fellow ... leading much of the scientific thinking in physics for decades, should be considered when he offers an opinion about something as important as the problem of the existence or the non-existence of the god that has consumed and confused mankind's thoughts for so many centuries.

I do give Dr. Hawkings thinking weight.

Its yours that I do not.

Your loss sir.  Would you care to repeat some words I've contributed lately that you consider not worthy of reasonable weight ... perhaps explaining the deficiencies therein?  Or do you wish to simply convey nonsense ... no substance ... and your usual insults? 

I suspect a little jealousy on your part because you seem unable to discuss anything of substance with any depth.

Can anyone tell me with a simple answer:

Do you have a body?
or
Are you a body?

Quote from: stephendare on September 28, 2014, 02:06:05 PM
I see.  And of course accusing people who discount your opinions of jealousy is terribly substantive.  Thanks for the depth, Chamblin.

Check my wording sir.  Its not an accusation.  Its a suspicion. That's the only depth the issue requires sir.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 28, 2014, 02:19:44 PM
Can anyone tell me with a simple answer:

Do you have a body?
or
Are you a body?

An interesting question Ock. Although I might know what a body is, I'm not sure how to define "you" or "I" or "self". 

But yes, as far as I know, I do have a body ... "I" being for the most part within my mind, which is in my brain.   

As to the question "Are you a body?"  ... a simple answer seems impossible to me.

My opinion is that "I" (the self) is in the mind, which is in the brain, but that perhaps, if one recognizes the fact that the motor and sensory nerve endings extend completely throughout the body, I am, to some degree, also "body".
 
So ... if the mind is within the brain, which extends via motor and sensory nerve cells throughout the body, then we might wonder if "all" of the "I" (the self) is in the brain or, by way of nerve cells, does some of the "I"  extend into the body?  If much of the "I" essence exists in the peripheral parts of the body, then my answer to your second question would be "Yes", I am body, but only to the degree that the "I" essence is partitioned to it via the nerve cells.

Somehow, I suspect that you did not expect this answer, and that you had prepared your response for the simple answer of "no" or "yes".  But ... this is the best I can do sir.  :)

 

Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 28, 2014, 02:19:44 PM
Can anyone tell me with a simple answer:

Do you have a body?
or
Are you a body?

Further consideration allows me to say that the answer to the second question would be "No" ... and the answer to the first would be "Yes", which is a consequence of my belief that we, the self, or the "I" of the individual actually exists within the brain.  So, yes, I do have a body ... "I" being in the mind, which is in the brain, which is in the body.

And if one were to extend the idea, one could say that I would exist without a body if a medical team succeeded in an effort to cut away my body and keep my brain alive by feeding whatever nutrition or oxygen it needed.  After this feat, then one could say that I would not have a body. 

If they were able to connect my brain to another body, then I would "have a body" again. 

Pay attention sir.  You must learn to think clearly.  You too often gravitate to nonsense and insult simply because your intellent too often cannot grasp the fundamentals of the subjects at issue.