I like this guys work.

I can not debate what he has said here, all I can do is share it with you.

It is inspiring.



Why I never became an atheist

Those who know much about me, know that I was once a young-earth creationist who, working in geology, came to know that the apologetics taught by young-earth creationists didn't work for geology. The world wasn't 6000 years old and there was not global flood. I had fought for years trying to put geology into a coherent picture which would fit the typical young-earth scenario.

But, when, at age 44, I came to realize that this was impossible, I entered a tough period in my life in which I contemplated seriously becoming an atheist. I couldn't trust Christian apologists to tell me anything I felt was true, and that then spread to wondering if the disciples had told me anything true when it came to the resurrection. I spent probably 8 years (in what I called) living on the lip--a golf analogy in which I stayed on the edge of atheism, neither leaving christianity nor becoming an atheist. Two things prevented me from leaving: the experience I had when I was a new Christian praying for a Turkish translator--http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200206/0084.html

and secondly, the problem of creation itself.

As a physicist by training, I have kept an active interest in events in physics throughout my life and having done graduate work in philosophy, I knew that there were fundamentally only 3 explanations for the existence of the universe.

1. God created the universe
2. The universe always existed
3. The universe came into existence on its own out of utter nothingness.

This second reason may have been more important in my remaining a Christian because the first event could be claimed to be a statistical fluke--I don't think so, but logically one can't rule such things out.

Anyway, of the 3 cases above, #2, the case of the universe always existing seems to be ruled out by observational data. Prior to the 1960s this was the preferred belief. Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Hermann Bondi had proposed the Steaty State Universe circa 1950 and because it had a universe which did not need a creator was the preferred option.

But in the 1960s, the cosmic microwave background was discovered and it was a prediction of the Big Bang theory and the Big Bang theory requires a beginning for the universe--something consistent with a Creator.

But if option 2 is out, that leaves 1 and 3. Either God created the universe or it created itself by coming out of utter nothingness. What does it mean for something to come out of absolute nothingness.

Now, looking at all the options for the reason of the universe's
existence (or at least the ones I can think of), we have
1. God
2. the universe itself
3. logic
4. vacuum
5. inflaton field
6. ourselves

These may not be totally independent causes. God could use the vacuum to create the universe, but what we are interested in is the First Cause of the universe, that which in some sense 'always was' although that in itself is a bad term to use because it implies time before the Big Bang.

Let me run through these contenders for the First Cause to illustrate why I do not believe the question of existence itself is susceptible to the God of the Gaps charge.

With God, the game is very familiar. God zaps something into existence which
either leads to our universe through an evolutionary process or God zaps thing after thing into existence created ala a magician, our present world. Science can not ask God to step into the lab and be tested so this option, if true, is beyond science.

The Universe

The universe itself might be an odd way for a creation, but Hawkings No-Boundary proposal for the universe posits that there are no temporal boundaries either. The universe always has been and there are no singularities. Hawkings writes:

"What is the point of introducing the concept of imaginary time? Why doesn't one just stick to the ordinary, real time that we understand? The reason is that, as noted earlier, matter and energy tend to make space-time curve in on itself. In the real time direction, this inevitably leads to singularities, places where space-time comes to an end. At the singularities, the equations of physics cannot be defined; thus one cannot predict what will happen. But the imaginary time direction is at right angles to real time. This means that it behaves in a similar way to the three directions that correspond to moving in space. The curvature of space-time caused by the matter in the universe can then lead to the three space directions and the imaginary time direction meeting up around the back. They would form a closed surface, like the surface of the earth. The three space directions
and imaginary time would form a space-time that was closed in on itself, without boundaries or edges. It wouldn't have any point that could be called a beginning or end, any more than the surface of the earth has a beginning or end." Stephen Hawking, Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, (New York: Bantam Books, 1993), p. 82-83

Now, what this does is posit eternal existence to the universe itself and does
away with the Big Bang. But, why does it EXIST? What logic requires such a self-contained universe to actually exist rather than absolutely nothingness be the case? Science can't seem to answer that and it seems very difficult to construct an experiment to address that question. Lacking such an experiment, it seems to me that we have gone outside of science when we address the existence of Hawking's no boundary universe. But even if his view is accepted, one must posit god-like properties to his universe--the property of self- existence, self-creation, and eternal life. This proposal actually tries to avoid explaining existence.

Logic

This concept comes to my mind from an article I read in New Scientist a couple of years ago (Feb 17, 2001, p. 26). Anton Zeilinger has proposed that at the basis of all reality is the bit. The article, entitled 'In the Beginning was The Bit,' argues that the world is quantized because reality is informational bits, the atom of information is the bit. WE can only inquire of the world in yes or no questions. Now to my mind, existence itself is also binary. Either one exists or one doesn't exist, yes or no. And if that is the case, then one could propose that we exist because the answer came up yes. But one must then ask, why would the entire mechanism of a yes-no logic exist out of which came the answer 'yes'? How could logic exist when all else was nothingness? So once again, we are at the point of having to postulate god-like attributes to something other than God in order to have existence. Logic must have been always self- existing, self-created and had the ability to create.

The Vacuum

This is the view that the universe is created by a quantum fluctuation in the pre-existing vacuum. Edward Tryon says:

"If it is true that our universe has a zero net value for all conserved
quantities, then it may simply be a fluctuation of the vacuum, the answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time." Edward P. Tryon, "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?" Nature, 246(1973):396-397, reprinted in John Leslie, ed., Modern Cosmology & Philosophy, (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1998), p. 224

But Tryon's answer is incomplete. In his view the universe would exist because the vacuum existed previously. But one must then ask why the vacuum existed? What logic requires it to be here rather than be NOT HERE? One can see quickly that godlike properties have to be attributed to the vacuum. It must exist eternally, it must be self- creative, it must be capable of creating our universe. Once again, we have something incredibly godlike but we dare not call it god. Alexander Vilenkin has proposed a universe which comes out of nothing and it is an extension of Tryon's idea. He has it start with no matter and no space or time. But he can't do without the existence of equations which somehow have the power to actually cause what Vilenkin's theory says. In other words, Vilenkin has to start with the existence somehow of logic and math. In what substrate is the INFORMATION encoding these equations held when there is no space, no time and no matter. Information requires matter (Rolf Landauer, "Information is Physical," Physics Today, May 1991, p. 24). So where was the equation residing and how was it put into play? Why this equation and not another one? Vilenkin really doesn't start with absolutely nothing because equations and logic are actually something. In order to solve the problem one must start with absolutely nothing--no equations, no logic, no space, no time, no vacuum etc ad nauseum.

The inflaton field

This is not that much different from the Vacuum and the arguments will be much the same. Alan Guth proposed that an inflaton field creates universe after universe in cosmic eternity and we are just one of those universes. But there are lots of problems with the idea. "However, inflation is not yet fact; it still awaits experimental confirmation. As I pointed out before, no one has ever seen an inflaton, the field that supposedly drives inflation. Until we do, there is a market for alternative ways to solve these riddles, and scope for much childish bickering among cosmologists." Joao Magueijo, Faster than the Speed of Light, (Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, 2003), p. 132

And, one must still ask why did the inflaton field exist? Is it the ultimate god-
like thing possessing self-creation, eternal existence and magnificent creative
powers? Why does it exist and how does science address that simple question. I know of no way to address the question of existence via science at all.

Ourselves.

This comes from the need for an observer in the Copenhagn interpretation of
quantum. The universe exists because we observe it to exist. I doubt there are many adherents to this view and I find it odd to place mankind in the place of god, but given that science can't even explain the existence consciousness and self-awareness, much less even define it, we have to list this only for completeness sake. To take this option makes us observers the godlike beings with properties of self-creation. And that is not a view I will hold. But once again, I know of no scientific test one could possibly use to determine if that is true or not. Why do we exist? In this brief survey it is clear that whatever road we take, we must posit godlike properties to something. Even self-creating universes become godlike in the traditional sense of that word.

Is there a science experiment which will distinguish between the above options when it comes to existence itself? I can't think of one. In order to do it one would have to start with a lab full of....utterly nothing and then try each of the above options to see which one turned utterly nothing into something. And that is impossible to do.

So where does science get us? If you define science as the positivists did, then science is only what we can observe, then our science does not allow us to observe things very close to the origin of the universe. I know we have lots of mathematical theories going back to those times but we have no verification. The cosmic microwave background allows us to see the universe only back to the decoupling era, when electromagnetic radiation and matter decoupled and atoms were able to form. This is about 300,000 years after the Big Bang (Silk, Big Bang, 3rd ed. p. 163). While we think we know what happened before that, we actually have no observations from astronomy.

But we do have evidence from particle physics. The collisions of particles in the upcoming Large Hadron Collider will take us back to 10^-15 seconds after the Big Bang. But there it stops. It is highly unlikely that we will ever build an
accelerator big enough to probe the big bang itself.

"At earlier times and higher energies, the temperature increases continuously
back to the Planck instant, where it attains the incredible value of 10^32 kelvins. For physicists who ordinarily work with giant particle accelerators, such conditions are unattainable. The corresponding energy is 10^19 gigaelectron volts (giga- billion): the largest planned terrestrial accelerators may smash particles together at energies of thousands of gigaelectron volts. The early universe offers a marvelous particle accelerator: we would need to build an array of superconducting magnets 1 light-year across to duplicate it." Joseph Silk, The Big Bang, 3rd ed. (New York: W. H. Freeman 2001), p. 110

Now, given that we will always have this observational gap and given that science can not possibly explain why things exist without positing god-like powers to something and given that one can't have a lab full of nothing to test the efficacy of various theories for our existence, this question is entirely outside of science.

If this question of existence is outside of science, then it can't be a God-of-
the-Gaps argument. That argument is when someone says something like: Flowers can't grow therefore God does it. In such a case science has the possibility of answering how flowers grow. But in the case of existence itself, science has NO opportunity to answer the question and that means, NO God-of-the-gaps is involved here. THe gaps refers to gaps in scientific knowledge, but existence itself is not a scientific question. The question of how the universe possesses existence itself is an open question which leaves one free to chose his favorite poison.

In conclusion, the inability to explain the existential question without a God is probably the biggest reason today that I reject atheism.

Einstein and Hawkings both also believe in a Creator.

I almost forgot to give credit where credit is due.

The poster name is grmorton.

I really should ask him to visit these forums. He might like it.

I take exception to Mr. Morton's premise, on which he bases his entire argument.

"As a physicist by training, I have kept an active interest in events in physics throughout my life and having done graduate work in philosophy, I knew that there were fundamentally only 3 explanations for the existence of the universe.

1. God created the universe
2. The universe always existed
3. The universe came into existence on its own out of utter nothingness."

We don't know how the universe was created yet he somehow believes he's narrowed it down to these three possibilities. I think he's getting his philosophy mixed up with his science.

If this question of existence is outside of science, then it can't be a God-of-
the-Gaps argument. That argument is when someone says something like: Flowers can't grow therefore God does it. In such a case science has the possibility of answering how flowers grow. But in the case of existence itself, science has NO opportunity to answer the question and that means, NO God-of-the-gaps is involved here. THe gaps refers to gaps in scientific knowledge, but existence itself is not a scientific question. The question of how the universe possesses existence itself is an open question which leaves one free to chose his favorite poison.

In conclusion, the inability to explain the existential question without a God is probably the biggest reason today that I reject atheism.Despite what the author claims, his last statement is in fact a "God-of-the-gaps" argument." He assumes that the question of existence is not within the realm of scientific knowledge, yet he cannot possibly know what scientific discoveries may be made in the future. One premise of science is that it can explain everything (even if it has not yet done so), and that includes the question of existence. So what he is essentially saying is "I don't have any other explanation, so it must be God." Such an argument ignores the fact that there may indeed be an explanation one day.

Also, if God is the only explanation for the existence of the universe, then what is the explanation for the existence of God?

Here are some answers grmorton gave on another forum, umm. Hope they help.




grmorton

I am familiar with Smolin's selection theory. You might want to learn that Vilenkin thinks he has disproven that because Smolin's idea that universes which produce the most black holes, are not those like the one we live in.

For those who don't know, Lee Smolin, a very good physicist involved in Loop Quantum Gravity, has proposed that universes evolve and are selected for the quality of producing new universes. These new universes are believed to be created when a black hole is created.

Two problems with this. First, we can't actually know that a new universe is created when a black hole is created. THat is faith to say that. Secondly,

"Vilenkin calculated the rate at which these mini black holes would appear in universes with different values of the cosmological constant (CC), which describes the accelerated expansion of the universe. Ech universe reaches a constant tempaerature, determined by its CC, after a few billion years, and this temperature controls min-black-hole production after this point. Vilenkin found that raising the CC above the value seen in our universe dramatically increases the number of black holes produced in the later part ofa universe's life. 'Our universe is very far from being the optimum black hole factory,' says Vilenkin." Zeeya Merali, "Maybe Evolution Didn't Tune Our Universe After All," New Scientist, Jan 6, 2007, p. 14

Smolin's idea was that the universes which produce the most offspring become the most prominent and thus become typical.

Another problem with this is that it is entirely based upon faith. There is not one shred of evidence --observational evidence--in favor of either the existence of other universes, or of other dimensions in which they could exist. We can never observe them, so why are they any different than angels or cheribums?

To believe in a gazillion other unobserved universes, as is required by Smolin's view, as is required by String Theory, in order to avoid the implications of design provided by the Anthropic Principle, is an act of faith which would make the average Christian blush.

As Martin Gardner says.

"In my layman's opinion they are all frivolous fantasies. As far as we can tell, universes are not as plentiful as even two blackberries. Surely the conjecture that there is just one universe and its Creator is infinitely simpler and easier to believe than that there are countless billions upon billions of worlds, constantly increasing in number and created by nobody. I can only marvel at the low state to which today's philosophy of science has fallen." Martin Gardner, "Multiverses and Blackberries," in Martin Garner, Are Universes Thicker than Blackberries?, (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2003), p. 9


We are all stuck with having some brute fact. I would ask you why is your faith that your brute facts are better than my brute facts. It was this (as we in Texas very politically incorrectly call a Mexican Standoff) standoff which made me realize that atheism had nothing more to offer over Christianity. Both had this stand off. Something HAS to exist eternally and have existed from eternity past.

But to have the unvierse come into existence from utter nothingness--no logic, no math, no matter, seems ridiculous. And observation has ruled out that the universe has existed from all times. If you haven't heard, the Steady State theory is dead. That kind of leaves God as the only rational option.

Why do you think the laws of nature are earlier in the rabbit hole than God? I would think that the special values of the physical constants, which can't be explained by those laws, makes them further down the rabbit hole than you seem to think. Consider this from Leonard Susskind, who basically says, if the multiverse fails, we only have intelligent design (not the silly biological intelligent design of the normal ID group)..

If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID." Leonard Susskind, quoted by Amanda Gefter, "Because We are Here"' New Scientist, Dec. 17, 2005, p. 50

And this leaves atheism without the usual holier than those Christians platform. All positions lead to faith and if that is all we have, then why not go with the view that told you you have to have faith---Christianity?

Agreed that the God of the Gaps (GoG) view has been used too easily. But, the existence itself is fundamentally unexplainable. There is no science which can explain it and that, to me, places this issue in an entirely different category. Most GoG views are like, 'we can't explain how lightning happens'. We see lots of lightning, we can interact with lightning. We can fly kites to see what happens when lightning strikes it. Eventually we learn what lightning is.

Now, take existence. How many existences are there? Can we see one or multiple existences? (the analogy with the above has already begun to break down). Lightning exists; when it doesn't we are safe.

When one considers utter nothingness (and I mean utter nothingness), there is no math, no logic, no vacuum, nothing. How does it become SOMETHING??? What experiment are you going to perform to decide how absolute nothingness becomes something? Without an experiment or a kite to fly into nothingness how is science going to fill in this hole?

Thus, I would contend that the problem of something out of nothing is so fundamental that it does not fall into the GoG problem. It is the one mystery which can't be filled in.

Without a Creator as the ground of existence one then is forced to posit something Creator-like to fill the role, be it unobserved inflaton fields, unobserved evolution of universes from black holes, the unobserved multiverse or whatever. All this is doing is really just renaming what traditionally has been called God.


You abbreviate my argument to the point of unrecognizeability. What I said was that an eternally existing universe is ruled out by the observational data. That is a fact. Do you dispute that?

Secondly, I then note that the problem of something out of nothing must be solved in a world without a God if one is believe the materialist view. What is your solution to this? By saying that the universe 'brute fact' exists, is really just transferring a God-like trait to matter and then proclaiming that there is no need for God. In otherwords, this approach just renames God but doesn't really do without the need for something with Godlike powers of self-existence. When viewed this way, it appears to me that it is more rational simply to beleive in a God.

This is especially true when one adds the argument of the fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe. To get this exquisitely tuned world by chance is unbelievabe. To do it requires the postulation of gazillions of unobserved entities--other universes. Why is the positing of gazillions of unobserved universes, unobserved dimensions, unobserved branes so scientific? (for the young-earthers, this argument only works if you actually believe life and the universe evolved)

Well, I think you raise, but don't examine an extremely important point. Atoms and molecules don't have purpose and meaning. They have no intention. Yet, intentionality is rampant among humans. We dont' follow the 'laws of nature'. Penfield used to stimulate the brains of people undergoing brain surgery. If they followed the rules, when he stimulated the brain, the arm should move. Yet what are we to think of the woman who used her other hand to intentionally hold down the other arm? How did a collection of atoms have the intention to do this?

Once when I had surgery, they told me they would put sodium pentathol in my iv at my hand. I would feel it crawl up my arm and when it hit my shoulder, I would go to sleep. They wanted me to count backwards from 100 to 90 during this process (why I don't know). I asked them how far had people gotten. They said no one got to 90. They all quit by 95. I told them I would count backwards from 100 to 90 in Mandarin Chinese.

When they said go, I felt the creepies crawling up my arm. When I reached 95, it was at my shoulder. I will confess that it was the hardest thing I had ever done but I stayed awake to finish my count and then told them "I did it goodnight".

How does a group of atoms come to have intentionality, purpose etc? Searles notes an interesting aspect of this problem

"The second intractable feature of the mind is what philosophers and psychologists call 'intentionality', the feature by which our mental states are directed at, or about, or refer to, or are of objects and states of affairs in the world other than themselves. 'Intentionality', by the way, doesn't just refer to intentions, but also to beliefs, desires, hopes, fears, love, hate, lust, disgust, shame, pride, irritation, amusement, and all of those mental states (whether conscious or unconscious) that refer to, or are about, the world apart from the mind. Now the question about intentionality is much like the question about consciousness. How can this stuff inside my head be about anything? How can it refer to anything? After all, this stuff in the skull consists of ' atoms in the void', just as all of the rest of material reality consists of atoms in the void. Now how, to put it crudely, can atoms in the void represent anything?"
"The third feature of the mind that seems difficult to accommodate within a scientific conception of reality is the subjectivity of mental states. This subjectivity is marked by such facts as that I can feel my pains, and you can't. I see the world from my point of view; you see it from your point of view. I am aware of myself and my internal mental states, as quite distinct from the selves and mental states of other people. Since the seventeenth century we have come to think of reality as something which must be equally accessible to all competent observers - that is, we think it must be objective. Now, how are we to accommodate the reality of subjective mental phenomena with the scientific conception of reality as totally objective? John Searle, Minds, Brains, and Science, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), p.15-17

Subjectivity violates the basic rule of science of public knowledge. What goes on in our mind is not public (thank goodness) and thus, it is not really accessible to the scientific method. When I see you walking across a campus and I think you are going to the Student Union, I can't be sure of that. The only way I can know where you are going is to ask you--what is your intention.

It seems to me that intentionality doesn't fit well within a reductionist universe governed by law.

My complaint is that there is no observational evidence for this inflation at the Big Bang that Guth speaks of--and he acknowledges it. What we have is an interesting speculation that may be true, but given that we don't know it is true, why is it BETTER than a beleif in God. Consider this from the paper you reference

The basic workings of inflationary models are summarized, along with the arguments that strongly suggest that our universe is the product of inflation. It is argued that essentially all inflationary models lead to (future-)eternal inflation, which implies that an infinite number of pocket universes are produced. Although the other pocket universes are unobservable, their existence nonetheless has consequences for the way that we evaluate theories and extract consequences from them. The question
of whether the universe had a beginning is discussed but not definitively answered. It
appears likely, however, that eternally inflating universes do require a beginning."http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0101/0101507.pdf

I would add that leprechauns are equally unobservable and I assert that they all wear red ties.

Secondly, look at the unobservable inflation energy.
"The key idea—the underlying physics—that makes inflation possible is the fact that most
modern particle theories predict that there should exist a state of matter that turns gravity on its head, creating a gravitational repulsion. This state can only be reached at energies well beyond those that we can probe experimentally, but the theoretical arguments for the existence of the state are rather persuasive. It is not merely the prediction of some specific theory, but it is the generic prediction for a wide class of plausible theories. Thus, gravity does not always have to be attractive." http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0101/0101507.pdf

Guth's explanation requires that the universe be high energy and hot. So, I would ask the question, Is his inflation the dark energy observed in the supernova data? Maybe, maybe not. The dark energy we see accelerating the cosmic expansion is NOT at the energy of unification. The universe simply isn't that hot--it is COLD.

My main gripe is that reductionist views and advocates, who look down their noses at the theists, are doing precisely the same thing as religious people are doing. We have angels, they have unobserved inflaton fields. We have cheribims, they have a multiverse, we have God, they have the HIggs field.

Many ideas (Guth's inflation) have this concept. One still needs to explain how the inflation field, the Higgs field came to BE. They either existed forever, or were brought forth from nothingness. There is no false trichotomy here.

And why is that worse than what you are putting in there--an eternally existing material object? If you don't understand the point, that SOMETHING must fulfill this role, then you haven't understood the logic philosophers have found with this problem.

It won't be the case. Science cannot fill that gap. Why? Because if one has matter come out of nothing, one needs an equation to define what happens. That equation represents information. Information is only found in material systems. Therefore, to even have logic, one needs matter into which to encode that logic.

Are you aware that information is physical?

Very interesting stuff... thanks for posting it.

I've always had a theory that those who consider themselves too 'intellectual' to embrace Christianity may actually lack the intelligence required to understand it.

;)
SMW

THe gaps refers to gaps in scientific knowledge, but existence itself is not a scientific question.
I agree with that. Possibly the only way to pursue that kind of questions are by contemplation or direct experience.

Very interesting stuff... thanks for posting it.

I've always had a theory that those who consider themselves too 'intellectual' to embrace Christianity may actually lack the intelligence required to understand it.

;)
SMW

Quick question...why in your mind is it Christianity that is the way?

Very interesting stuff... thanks for posting it.

I've always had a theory that those who consider themselves too 'intellectual' to embrace Christianity may actually lack the intelligence required to understand it.

;)
SMW
The quick rebuff to that theory is that you are in fact a stupid cow, in no place to judge such needs.

Ultimately though, physics fulfills the curious mind, religion fulfills the part that needs to be comfortable with the world. As long as space exists within a paradigm to combine the two, most people will do it. Absolute knowledge is a tempting target, and combining physics with religion enables the mind to comfortably know everything.

I know everything too, but it's by no means a comfortable knowledge.

I wouldn't say I'm "too intellectual" to embrace Christianity. I believe in God, but I have a problem with organized religion, because it seems to me to be inherently corrupt and to lead people to discrimination. How many wars have been fought because or mainly because of religion? Anyways, I think everyone should have their own personal relationship with god.

Also, I haven't really decided whether I believe that god created us or not. I'm pretty sure, because there are so many things about humans that seem to invalidate just coming about randomly.

Just some little thoughts.

Nappy, the mere fact that you find it necessary to call me a stupid cow for expressing my opinion speaks volumes about your own insecurities. I'm sorry for you.

Sal, I think Christianity gives the world a 'moral compass' so to speak. If none of us believed in anything we couldn't prove, what would stop us from thinking it's OK to do whatever's necessary to get what we want? Fortunately for the rest of us, even people who claim to be atheists seem to embrace the simple rules of the Ten Commandments. That is, of course, unless it's just the Justice System that keeps them from murdering people they don't like. But even then, their accusers would be placing a hand on the Bible and swearing to tell the truth, so in some aspect, they'd still be facing religious judgment.

DF, I agree with you about the pitfalls of organized religion and don't believe one has to sign up with a group to be considered a Christian.

I wouldn't say I'm "too intellectual" to embrace Christianity. I believe in God, but I have a problem with organized religion, because it seems to me to be inherently corrupt and to lead people to discrimination. How many wars have been fought because or mainly because of religion? Anyways, I think everyone should have their own personal relationship with god.

Also, I haven't really decided whether I believe that god created us or not. I'm pretty sure, because there are so many things about humans that seem to invalidate just coming about randomly.

Just some little thoughts.


You don't need religion to be a Christian.

You don't need religion to be a Christian.

Hm, that surprised me Inviolable. It's nice to hear that from a born again.

Christianity is a religion...

Anyways, I believe in god but I do not worship Jesus Christ. I believe he was a great man whose teachings were wonderful, but I don't believe he was the "son of god" and all that. I guess I'm kind of like a Jew that way. :D

You don't need religion to be a Christian.But if you're Christian, ie. you believe in the tenets of Christianity, doesn't that make you an adherant of the Christian religion?

Sal, I think Christianity gives the world a 'moral compass' so to speak. If none of us believed in anything we couldn't prove, what would stop us from thinking it's OK to do whatever's necessary to get what we want? Fortunately for the rest of us, even people who claim to be atheists seem to embrace the simple rules of the Ten Commandments. That is, of course, unless it's just the Justice System that keeps them from murdering people they don't like. But even then, their accusers would be placing a hand on the Bible and swearing to tell the truth, so in some aspect, they'd still be facing religious judgment.
I agree that there are many amazing things done under the label of Christianity. I do think the majority of the populace benefit from having strict rules they need to follow because many would be incapable of doing it for themselves. More enlightened people may embrace it because of the tenets and well thought out personal philosophies which coincide.

As for others (myself included) raised Catholic but frankly find the whole concept to be ludicrous now. I find good and bad to be relative. But honestly, would not want most people to think such as I would be afraid of the result. I know many atheists and all have a personal moral and ethical code that would rival any Christian's. That has influenced me greatly.

I do see a need for it with the masses. I do believe in God but I believe us to be more powerful individually than most Christians would give us credit for. I do not view God as involved in the world in anyway.

As for swearing on the bible, the bible says not to swear on anything so to me just another human screw up as to God's wishes. Thanks for the explantion SMW.

As for others (myself included) raised Catholic but frankly find the whole concept to be ludicrous now.

I can relate -- being raised Southern Baptist and remembering the first time (at around age 12) where I questioned (at least to myself) why someone who was supposed to represent God (preacher) would feel it necessary to slam his fist on the podium and scream, "VENGENCE IS MINE, SAYETH THE LORD!" Figured if God had to resort to threatening us with burning in eternal hell, something wasn't quite right.

I found the Unity Church many years ago and felt so comfortable with their beliefs, I stopped looking for alternatives.

Nappy, the mere fact that you find it necessary to call me a stupid cow for expressing my opinion speaks volumes about your own insecurities. I'm sorry for you.
Actually, it speaks volumes about the fact that you're a stupid cow.

Actually, it speaks volumes about the fact that you're a stupid cow.

Knock it off Napster...consider yourself warned.

No need to get involved, VP. Since I've yet to see Nappy post anything I consider meaningful or thought-provoking anyway, and my presence on a thread seems to make him revert back to the mentality of an 11 year old, I'm putting him on IGNORE. Hopefully, he'll do the same for me.

SMW

Christianity is a religion...

Anyways, I believe in god but I do not worship Jesus Christ. I believe he was a great man whose teachings were wonderful, but I don't believe he was the "son of god" and all that. I guess I'm kind of like a Jew that way. :D

It is a number of religions. Several hundred. I couldnt say which one is right but I can say, you dont need any of them to be a Christian.

Personaly I believe the only way to believe in God is to believe in him through his son, Jesus Christ. Thats why I am, "Born Again"

Even the Jews believed in a messiah, they just didnt think it was Jesus and have yet to see him.

But if you're Christian, ie. you believe in the tenets of Christianity, doesn't that make you an adherant of the Christian religion?

Yes, but religion is a form of ritual. Traditions held by man.

God, Jesus made a promise that they keep, regardless of, if you are or are not in a religion.

Here are two of the options he gave for the creation of the universe (since #3 is really just saying that there is a God).

1. God created the universe, but always existed.
2. The universe has always existed.

Both have the same problem. That something has always existed. Therefore, neither is a proof of anything. All that question does is show that we don't have an answer yet.

Knock it off Napster...consider yourself warned.
I'm bored. Why does anyone care about musty old "truths" hidden deep within tomes of sacred knowledge? Whether it's religion or physics, what's the fucking point? Why do we care about any of it? Human curiosity be damned, there has to be a purpose to all that crap.

Ultimate truth, whether Jesus rose from the dead or not, what the universe is made of, why does anyone want to know? What in your life is so unfulfilling, that you must search long and hard for that truth? Why not let all the really smart people out there who've dedicated their lives to knowing do it? Those physicists with the brain power to comprehend all those silly mathematical scribblings are, I'm sure most everyone can agree, are far more capable of finding those things out than we are.

So why even care? Why take those things more seriously than a fun-loving fellow who just likes to poke at people to get fun interactions that everyone can enjoy? What makes ultimate truth of the universe more important than the people around you, the back and forth social interactions that we all crave? That SMW would bother to ignore me speaks much more to her insecurities than mine.

Yes, but religion is a form of ritual. Traditions held by man.

God, Jesus made a promise that they keep, regardless of, if you are or are not in a religion.

Traditions held by man - even though we know that man makes mistakes, and that man car err. The problem is that with nearly all religions you can't go back and validate the information that they give you, hence 'faith' - the notion that it is somehow a positive thing to act irrationally; without using any critical analysis.

Traditions held by man - even though we know that man makes mistakes, and that man car err. The problem is that with nearly all religions you can't go back and validate the information that they give you, hence 'faith' - the notion that it is somehow a positive thing to act irrationally; without using any critical analysis.


We all do it, act irrationally. Atheist often state that they need proof. Through this logic, one can only assume an Atheist would exclude anything that isnt justifiable by proof alone.

I have to admit, Atheist are willing to say, there are things they simply dont know. Which can leave things open to be exempt from exclusion.
However, somethings will never bear witness to proof in our life times. Which is evident to anyone who can say, "I dont know."
Which can only mean the Atheist who says, "I dont know" is knowingly closing themselves off from something.

Which is exactly what religion does.
We all just fall in line with what we believe.

I'm bored. Why does anyone care about musty old "truths" hidden deep within tomes of sacred knowledge? Whether it's religion or physics, what's the fucking point? Why do we care about any of it? Human curiosity be damned, there has to be a purpose to all that crap.

Ultimate truth, whether Jesus rose from the dead or not, what the universe is made of, why does anyone want to know? What in your life is so unfulfilling, that you must search long and hard for that truth? Why not let all the really smart people out there who've dedicated their lives to knowing do it? Those physicists with the brain power to comprehend all those silly mathematical scribblings are, I'm sure most everyone can agree, are far more capable of finding those things out than we are.

So why even care? Why take those things more seriously than a fun-loving fellow who just likes to poke at people to get fun interactions that everyone can enjoy? What makes ultimate truth of the universe more important than the people around you, the back and forth social interactions that we all crave? That SMW would bother to ignore me speaks much more to her insecurities than mine.


I love you man!

If you must have an ultimate truth to life, this is it.

You exist to provide a narrative. Everything you do, all that you say, the people you come in contact with, the games you play, the sex you have, exists for that sole reason. To fill that narrative void in your life that begins when you say the word, "I..." Fill it with whatever the hell you want. God, physics, wonder, happiness, ego, abundance, knowledge, social activity. Just don't think your narrative is more important than anyone else's. Other people might want you to fill in a place in their own narrative. What's wrong with that? Enhance your own narrative with that other person, however you see fit. Don't just ignore them. That, my friends, is insecurity.

We all do it, act irrationally.
Not knowingly and completely on purpose though.

Atheist often state that they need proof. Through this logic, one can only assume an Atheist would exclude anything that isnt justifiable by proof alone.
Not quite. I ask for evidence, not proof. Proof would be nice too though. I make my daily decisions on the evidence that I have in any particular scenario. If there is no evidence for something, I act as if that thing does not exist, as do we all. Theoretically a perfectly clear glass wall could have been build right above your head without you knowing about it. If you knew it was there you would move out of the way so you don't bang your head on it when you get up. However, you don't have any reason to believe that there is any glass above you, so you get up without protecting your head.

I'm bored.

Take up a hobby. Preferably one that doesn't involve seeing how obnoxious you can be.


Why does anyone care about musty old "truths" hidden deep within tomes of sacred knowledge? Whether it's religion or physics, what's the fucking point? Why do we care about any of it? Human curiosity be damned, there has to be a purpose to all that crap.

Ultimate truth, whether Jesus rose from the dead or not, what the universe is made of, why does anyone want to know? What in your life is so unfulfilling, that you must search long and hard for that truth? Why not let all the really smart people out there who've dedicated their lives to knowing do it? Those physicists with the brain power to comprehend all those silly mathematical scribblings are, I'm sure most everyone can agree, are far more capable of finding those things out than we are.

So why even care?

People care for a variety of reasons. If you don't care, perhaps this isn't the discussion for you.


Why take those things more seriously than a fun-loving fellow who just likes to poke at people to get fun interactions that everyone can enjoy?

Assuming you are referring to yourself here, I'd have to say your posts don't reflect a "fun-loving" attitude, rather one that seeks to make others as miserable as you seem to be at the moment.


That SMW would bother to ignore me speaks much more to her insecurities than mine.

Maybe she's just tired of being harrassed by an someone who does it because he's "bored".

You don't need religion to be a Christian.

As Dark pointed out, Christianity is a religion. It is based upon the teachings of an individual.

Without those teachings the most one could be is a Deist.

Not knowingly and completely on purpose though.

I'd say it would be more like habit. Again, religion is a trained habit.
Anything learned can grow into habit. Subconsciously or not.


Not quite. I ask for evidence, not proof. Proof would be nice too though. I make my daily decisions on the evidence that I have in any particular scenario. If there is no evidence for something, I act as if that thing does not exist, as do we all. Theoretically a perfectly clear glass wall could have been build right above your head without you knowing about it. If you knew it was there you would move out of the way so you don't bang your head on it when you get up. However, you don't have any reason to believe that there is any glass above you, so you get up without protecting your head.


So in other words, if the glass is empty, you wont drink out of it?

As Dark pointed out, Christianity is a religion. It is based upon the teachings of an individual.

Without those teachings the most one could be is a Deist.

Yes, but you dont have to practice it to become one.

Yes, but you dont have to practice it to become one.

You need exposure to the religion to even learn about it, let alone become one.

You need exposure to the religion to even learn about it, let alone become one.


Exposer sure, you need exposer to anything if you are to know of it. That doesn't mean you have to practice the religion before you become a Christian.

All you really need to do to become a Christian is know Jesus Christ died for your sins.

Take up a hobby. Preferably one that doesn't involve seeing how obnoxious you can be.



People care for a variety of reasons. If you don't care, perhaps this isn't the discussion for you.



Assuming you are referring to yourself here, I'd have to say your posts don't reflect a "fun-loving" attitude, rather one that seeks to make others as miserable as you seem to be at the moment.



Maybe she's just tired of being harrassed by an someone who does it because he's "bored".
You guys have sticks up your asses. I'm banning myself for another week.

All you really need to do to become a Christian is know Jesus Christ died for your sins.

There is a bit more to Christianity then just Jesus dying.

That is like saying all you need to know to be a Buddhist is that the Buddha meditated.

There is a bit more to Christianity then just Jesus dying.

To be maybe but not to become one. Jesus dying is the reason for Christianity.

That is like saying all you need to know to be a Buddhist is that the Buddha meditated.
Well, I'd dare say Budism is somewhat different then Christianity.

Are you a Christian?
Personaly I wasnt practicing Christianity before I became a Christian.

To be maybe but not to become one. Jesus dying is the reason for Christianity.

I don't agree with that. Jesus dying is just part of the story. Jesus' teachings are the reason for Christianity, in my opinion.


Well, I'd dare say Budism is somewhat different then Christianity.

Somewhat, but I think you understood my point. Buddhism and Christianity can both be distilled down into a very basic concept by focusing on only one aspect of the religion, it's story or teachings. But neither can be completely understood with only that very basic framework.

I don't agree with that. Jesus dying is just part of the story. Jesus' teachings are the reason for Christianity, in my opinion.

Jesus dying is the reason for his teachings.

Somewhat, but I think you understood my point. Buddhism and Christianity can both be distilled down into a very basic concept by focusing on only one aspect of the religion, it's story or teachings. But neither can be completely understood with only that very basic framework.

But you dont have to understand the religion to become a Christian.

Jesus dying is the reason for his teachings.

I disagree. Jesus' techings would lose no value or meaning if he hadn't died.


But you dont have to understand the religion to become a Christian.

I am not a fan of blind faith.

I disagree. Jesus' techings would lose no value or meaning if he hadn't died.




I am not a fan of blind faith.

Well, this is one subject I'd rather not debate with you. Jesus said in debate there is a "loser and a winner." You are not trying to win or lose when explaining Christ to someone.

Jesus taught that you can be forgiven of your sins. There is only one way to do that and it requires that you understand that Jesus died for your sins.

God Bless.

So, if I say "OK, Jesus died for my sins", and really make myself believe it, all my sins will be forgiven? That sounds pretty damn unrealistic from the same faith that tells me I'm going to hell...

So, if I say "OK, Jesus died for my sins", and really make myself believe it, all my sins will be forgiven? That sounds pretty damn unrealistic from the same faith that tells me I'm going to hell...


lol.

That is all you really need to do. Thats all I did.

Jewish religion speaks of hell as well. Only difference between the two is Jews cant just ask Jesus for forgiveness.

lol.

That is all you really need to do. Thats all I did.

Jewish religion speaks of hell as well. Only difference between the two is Jews cant just ask Jesus for forgiveness.

Who cares about the Jewish religion? I'm even less a Jew than a Christian, the only reason I suppose I'm similar to a Jew is that I don't believe Jesus was the son of god. I don't believe in a messiah at all though so I'm definitely not Jewish.

Who cares about the Jewish religion? I'm even less a Jew than a Christian, the only reason I suppose I'm similar to a Jew is that I don't believe Jesus was the son of god. I don't believe in a messiah at all though so I'm definitely not Jewish.


Why even believe in God if you have no way of getting to know him?

Why even believe in God if you have no way of getting to know him?

Are you kidding me? I have my own special relationship with god. I pray almost every day. I don't see why I need to pray to Jesus to get to god, nor how it would make a difference.

Are you kidding me? I have my own special relationship with god. I pray almost every day. I don't see why I need to pray to Jesus to get to god, nor how it would make a difference.


Thats fine, thats what you believe.

I was talking about what I believe. I was under the assumption you were asking. Are you still asking why Jesus is important to me?

Forgive me if I over stepped my boundaries.

Jesus taught that you can be forgiven of your sins. There is only one way to do that and it requires that you understand that Jesus died for your sins.


That is one of the things Jesus taught, among many. He also taught that we should love each other, we should take care of each other and that we should forgive others who wrong us.

One can be forgiven for their sins without ever knowing or understanding about Jesus dying.

"In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart." (Matthew 18:34-35)

"Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." (Ephesians 4:32)

Jewish religion speaks of hell as well. Only difference between the two is Jews cant just ask Jesus for forgiveness.

To Jews, Hell is the absense of God.

Jews can ask God for forgiveness. Same difference.

This is the problem I've always had with 'organized' religion. One person (sometimes a minister/priest/preacher/rabbi... sometimes a poster on a message board) makes a statement, like it's a FACT, about who you must pray to, what you must believe, how you can be forgiven for your sins, etc., etc.

Then the discussion turns into a 'who you gonna believe' dilemma and some people say to heck with it... y'all are all crazy!

A belief in God is a very personal thing... based on FAITH, which is not measurable nor definable. You either believe, or you don't.

I remember a sermon I heard once that stayed with me. In it, the preacher made this claim, "You're either FOR God or AGAINST God. There is NO middle ground."

Although we can debate for hours about that statement, I think in a nutshell, it defines whether or not you are a religious person. The degree of your participation in whatever religion you choose is strictly a personal decision.

One of the things I like the most about the Unity Church is their belief that Jesus was sent by God to teach us how to behave toward each other. In fact, one of the things 'they' tell you to do when you run across someone who makes you mad, is to say and repeat, "I behold the Christ in you." The purpose is to remind yourself that everyone has the potential to be 'good.' Whether or not they choose to use their God-given potential is out of your hands, but this is a way to remember that we're all God's children, warts and all.

Having said all that... guess I shoulda followed my own advice and tried to 'minister' to Nappy instead of just ignoring him.

Nahhhhhhhh, I ain't no saint. He went one Stupid Cow too far.

:)
SMW

This is the problem I've always had with 'organized' religion. One person (sometimes a minister/priest/preacher/rabbi... sometimes a poster on a message board) makes a statement, like it's a FACT, about who you must pray to, what you must believe, how you can be forgiven for your sins, etc., etc.

Then the discussion turns into a 'who you gonna believe' dilemma and some people say to heck with it... y'all are all crazy!

A belief in God is a very personal thing... based on FAITH, which is not measurable nor definable. You either believe, or you don't.

I remember a sermon I heard once that stayed with me. In it, the preacher made this claim, "You're either FOR God or AGAINST God. There is NO middle ground."

Although we can debate for hours about that statement, I think in a nutshell, it defines whether or not you are a religious person. The degree of your participation in whatever religion you choose is strictly a personal decision.

One of the things I like the most about the Unity Church is their belief that Jesus was sent by God to teach us how to behave toward each other. In fact, one of the things 'they' tell you to do when you run across someone who makes you mad, is to say and repeat, "I behold the Christ in you." The purpose is to remind yourself that everyone has the potential to be 'good.' Whether or not they choose to use their God-given potential is out of your hands, but this is a way to remember that we're all God's children, warts and all.

Having said all that... guess I shoulda followed my own advice and tried to 'minister' to Nappy instead of just ignoring him.

Nahhhhhhhh, I ain't no saint. He went one Stupid Cow too far.

:)
SMW

To me any religion that starts with the idea that there is only one way to salvation to mea starts from a false premise!

Are you kidding me? I have my own special relationship with god. I pray almost every day. I don't see why I need to pray to Jesus to get to god, nor how it would make a difference.

I agree. God can hear me. BTW I love your pic. I have that on saved as a teacher it is one of my favorite pics!!

I'd say it would be more like habit. Again, religion is a trained habit.

Anything learned can grow into habit. Subconsciously or not.

Don't try to tell me that you subconsciously became a christian. You purposely go to church. You choose to listen to them and you choose to believe what they tell you. You suspend your critical thinking and logic, by choice as well.

So in other words, if the glass is empty, you wont drink out of it?
If there is nothing in the glass to drink, I won't drink.

If there's no evidence, why should anyone believe in something?

One problem I have with people who believe in personal god is that most of the time they believe that their personal god loves them no matter what they are doing. Whereas people who believe in scriptures have clear cut rules of which actions are sins and when they do these things they believe god would not approve...

It seems like personal god belief is more about feel-good than anything. People who believe in one simply doesn't make it up to be a god that dislikes things that this person likes to do.

For example, there are those who believe god doesn't care about homosexuality. It would seem that they don't like a god who hates homosexuals in the first place, but still want to believe in some force, so they proceed to say that god is not like that...personal god believers seem to mold their personal god into something that's completely compatible with what they like and don't like. You see, whereas people who believe in organized religion have rules already set up for them, these personal believers just make rules up. I don't want to say it's pointless, but it seems completely self-serving--it makes the believer feels better but nothing more. (especially since it would be self-contradictory for this kind of believer to say that my god is also everyone else's god)

One problem I have with people who believe in personal god is that most of the time they believe that their personal god loves them no matter what they are doing. Whereas people who believe in scriptures have clear cut rules of which actions are sins and when they do these things they believe god would not approve...

It seems like personal god belief is more about feel-good than anything. People who believe in one simply doesn't make it up to be a god that dislikes things that this person likes to do.

For example, there are those who believe god doesn't care about homosexuality. It would seem that they don't like a god who hates homosexuals in the first place, but still want to believe in some force, so they proceed to say that god is not like that...personal god believers seem to mold their personal god into something that's completely compatible with what they like and don't like. You see, whereas people who believe in organized religion have rules already set up for them, these personal believers just make rules up. I don't want to say it's pointless, but it seems completely self-serving--it makes the believer feels better but nothing more. (especially since it would be self-contradictory for this kind of believer to say that my god is also everyone else's god)
Better a self-serving religion than one used to control people.

Better a self-serving religion than one used to control people.

Amen

I think what SMW is saying has more to do with "spirituality" than religion itself. Religion has nothing to od with a person's personal convictions. As the initial invitation stands, the question of existence is open and each is free to choose his or her own "poison".

Religion, as I know, is not tantamount to faith or belief, nor spirituality. It's a little hard to explain but I do know of self-professed atheists who exhibit more "Christ-like" character than Christians.

Spirituality, for lack of a better term, is siomething I use to refer to a person's intimate relationship with Whatever or Whoever it is, he or she acknowledges as his Creator.

I hope that makes sense.

I think what SMW is saying has more to do with "spirituality" than religion itself. Religion has nothing to od with a person's personal convictions. As the initial invitation stands, the question of existence is open and each is free to choose his or her own "poison".

Religion, as I know, is not tantamount to faith or belief, nor spirituality. It's a little hard to explain but I do know of self-professed atheists who exhibit more "Christ-like" character than Christians.

Spirituality, for lack of a better term, is siomething I use to refer to a person's intimate relationship with Whatever or Whoever it is, he or she acknowledges as his Creator.

I hope that makes sense.
This acknowledgement seems to only take place after they have come up with a diety with attributes they are happy with.

It's very different from the conventional religion inception: god exists and we are compelled to believe in his existance whether you like the way he does things or not.

You have to see that as annoying as the conventional way is, it is more consistent than those new age personal belief systems where you just make up rules as you go.

Spirituality, for lack of a better term, is siomething I use to refer to a person's intimate relationship with Whatever or Whoever it is, he or she acknowledges as his Creator.

I hope that makes sense.

I'm an atheist, and I acknowledge my mom and dad as my creators. I somehow doubt that's what you were looking for though.

One problem I have with people who believe in personal god is that most of the time they believe that their personal god loves them no matter what they are doing. Whereas people who believe in scriptures have clear cut rules of which actions are sins and when they do these things they believe god would not approve...

It seems like personal god belief is more about feel-good than anything. People who believe in one simply doesn't make it up to be a god that dislikes things that this person likes to do.

For example, there are those who believe god doesn't care about homosexuality. It would seem that they don't like a god who hates homosexuals in the first place, but still want to believe in some force, so they proceed to say that god is not like that...personal god believers seem to mold their personal god into something that's completely compatible with what they like and don't like. You see, whereas people who believe in organized religion have rules already set up for them, these personal believers just make rules up. I don't want to say it's pointless, but it seems completely self-serving--it makes the believer feels better but nothing more. (especially since it would be self-contradictory for this kind of believer to say that my god is also everyone else's god)

God loves everyone, no matter what they do. I don't think god is caught up with good people vs. evil people. He created us, basically left us to our own devices, and now he's watching. I think he sometimes helps us out, maybe not in a direct way, but steers people toward what they should be doing. But I don't believe in hell, and I don't believe god would put people there for "sins" that are just the basic rules of civilized society.

Don't try to tell me that you subconsciously became a christian. You purposely go to church. You choose to listen to them and you choose to believe what they tell you. You suspend your critical thinking and logic, by choice as well.

Thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying Atheist will deny any knowledge that has no proof behind it because of what you have said above.


If there is nothing in the glass to drink, I won't drink.

If there's no evidence, why should anyone believe in something?


Also what I was saying. Something learned through expierence is something understood better then an explanation.
An Atheist will never understand why 3 billion people on the planet, choose to suspend critical thinking. Because an Atheist is unwilling to expierence it on a conscious level, they choose to sit on the sidelines and pass judgement, that distracts them from understanding the need to live a life style they cant understand.

I'm sorry but I have to add this.

This statement strongly suggest that you think every single Christian is a moron.
"Don't try to tell me that you subconsciously became a christian. You purposely go to church. You choose to listen to them and you choose to believe what they tell you. You suspend your critical thinking and logic, by choice as well."

You assume that I go to Church, I dont. You assume that I listen to "them" and I dont. You also assume that I choose to believe what "they" tell me and youre wrong.
As with a lot of Christians there is no one who told me to be a Christian before I became one, I just did.

I can profile all Atheist has you have obviously done with Christians, but I know it isnt right. So I don't.
Thats a prime example of how we all act irrationally.

I do not believe that faith requires a suspension of critical thinking.

Thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying Atheist will deny any knowledge that has no proof behind it because of what you have said above.

If it has no proof (evidence) behind it, it isn't knowledge.


As with a lot of Christians there is no one who told me to be a Christian before I became one, I just did.

I'm curious about this statement. I don't wish to pry into your personal life Inviolable, but you seem to be suggesting that you had an experience that convinced you to become a Christian. Further, you've stated that you are "born again" and believe that a person should accept Jesus as his savior and that they will then be subsequently saved. Given that you've stated you don't, and presumably didn't, go to church, and that no one told you how to think, or interpret your "experience", I can only conclude that this knowledge was somehow imparted to you by the experience itself. I was wondering if you might clarify.

I do not believe that faith requires a suspension of critical thinking.

An excellent example. :)

Einstein and Hawkings both also believe in a Creator.

His writings make very clear that Einstein in no way believed in the sort of "god" that superstitionists are referencing when they use that term. .

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
-Albert Einstein

"I came-- though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents -- to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve."
-Albert Einstein

I do not believe that faith requires a suspension of critical thinking.

It would seem to me that that is exactly what it does require.

__________________________________________________ _

The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.' ------ Robert Green Ingersoll

His writings make very clear that Einstein in no way believed in the sort of "god" that superstitionists are referencing when they use that term.

Agreed. There is a big difference between deists and religious folk.

If it has no proof (evidence) behind it, it isn't knowledge.
There are forms of knowledge that have no proof to them at all. As well as, you dont need proof of something to have knowledge of it.

I'm curious about this statement. I don't wish to pry into your personal life Inviolable, but you seem to be suggesting that you had an experience that convinced you to become a Christian. Further, you've stated that you are "born again" and believe that a person should accept Jesus as his savior and that they will then be subsequently saved. Given that you've stated you don't, and presumably didn't, go to church, and that no one told you how to think, or interpret your "experience", I can only conclude that this knowledge was somehow imparted to you by the experience itself. I was wondering if you might clarify.

Thats fine.
When I became a born again Christian, I was in a Church and I did listen to someone preach. It was one hour out of my life. Before that moment I had little to no knowledge of the bible and had only visisted a Church as a child, about two or three times.
It wasnt about the person preaching or the church I was in and not quite so much what he was saying. Although what he was saying did help, the words weren't the highlight of the moment, not the turning point or cause of.

As a matter of fact, I havent been to the church sense and have never been in contact with any of the people in the church at the time from then til now.
At least to my knowledge.
I was in a room full of strangers who remain to this day, strangers.
Although I have been thinking about going back there.
It was quite a while ago.

The experience I had.
I felt the presence of God. While the persona of the moment did help set the mood, I think it was just the moment and not my surroundings.
The mood itself wasnt the life changing moment, the mood helped set up the realisation that I am a sinner. Which in turn explained the need for forgiveness, which in turn brought on the presence of God I felt.

Now that I have explained this, are we going to have the same conversation I have had on these forums countless times before?
About how the feeling was mine alone and God had nothing to do with it.

There are forms of knowledge that have no proof to them at all.

For example?


As well as, you dont need proof of something to have knowledge of it.

Not sure what you're getting at here.



Now that I have explained this, are we going to have the same conversation I have had on these forums countless times before?
About how the feeling was mine alone and God had nothing to do with it.

Do you believe you have to accept Jesus Christ as your savior?

I'm an atheist, and I acknowledge my mom and dad as my creators. I somehow doubt that's what you were looking for though.
No, that's obviously not the subject we were discussing and you know it :)

This acknowledgement seems to only take place after they have come up with a diety with attributes they are happy with.

It's very different from the conventional religion inception: god exists and we are compelled to believe in his existance whether you like the way he does things or not.

You have to see that as annoying as the conventional way is, it is more consistent than those new age personal belief systems where you just make up rules as you go.


You have a good point there, DS. People, myself included, tend to go for selective 'discipleship", again, for lack of a better term. we select what suits us best. Even Christians fall into that trap.

The thing is that, conventional religion, as you refer to it, is often used, misused and abused, to advance the personal interests ad personal gains of so-called prophets of truth. A lay minister here refers to that as spiritual abuse. (talk about religion being the opium of the people)

I was born and bred Catholic and my family is devout. But I sure raise a lot of ethical even moral questions about doctrines and dogmas. I've come to a point where I was actually searching. For truth, meaning, in the rituals. That didn't make me an atheist. Almost, but not quite. Because while the perennial challenge posed to us believers is to show proof that there is such a being we call God, no proof has been shown that there isn't. Like what the physicist says, it's an open question.

And even in the trappings of religion, each finds his own meaning.

In my most simplistic way of thinking, I believe religion, and a person's affialiatin to such only reflects what each individual should be comfortable with as expressions of their relationship with their God. I believe that holds true, even for people who didn't really have a choice, e.g. people who are exposed only to one religion or faith.

For example?



Not sure what you're getting at here.


People come to their own knowledge, proof or no proof everyone does it. Fact or not. Even an Atheist will come to their own realizations with no outside influence and call it knowledge even though its on a subconscious level.



Do you believe you have to accept Jesus Christ as your savior?
I'm pretty sure I have stated that I do believe you have to accept Jesus Christ as your savior several times on these forums and a few alone in this thread. So yes I do.
What is your point for asking, if you knew the answer already?

Maybe what it all comes down to is the question Jesus himself was purported to have asked...

"Who do you think I am?"

God's son? Fictional character in an old book? The Great Teacher?

Everybody is entitled to their own definition. Just because Albert Einstein was a brilliant scientist doesn't mean he knew something about creation that nobody else knows. And in fact, he was actually more of an agnostic than athiest because once he determined that there was a 'BEGINNING" he did admit to believing 'some diety' created the universe, as he said here.

"I believe in Spinoza's God* who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

*Baruch (or Benedictus) Spinoza is one of the most important philosophers -- and certainly the most radical -- of the early modern period. His thought combines a commitment to Cartesian metaphysical and epistemological principles with elements from ancient Stoicism and medieval Jewish rationalism into a nonetheless highly original system. His extremely naturalistic views on God, the world, the human being and knowledge serve to ground a moral philosophy centered on the control of the passions leading to virtue and happiness. They also lay the foundations for a strongly democratic political thought and a deep critique of the pretensions of Scripture and sectarian religion. Of all the philosophers of the seventeenth-century, perhaps none have more relevance today than Spinoza.

People come to their own knowledge, proof or no proof everyone does it.

I don't agree that everyone does this.


Fact or not. Even an Atheist will come to their own realizations with no outside influence and call it knowledge even though its on a subconscious level.

I disagree. Knowledge is based on facts. Faith is based on belief. There's a very clear distinction to my mind, and I can't help but notice you gave me no specific examples of knowledge based on a lack of facts or evidence.


I'm pretty sure I have stated that I do believe you have to accept Jesus Christ as your savior several times on these forums and a few alone in this thread. So yes I do.

I had thought so too, but I wasn't certain and rather than read a bunch of old posts, I thought I'd ask.


What is your point for asking, if you knew the answer already?

I'm curious. Did this knowledge that you must accept Jesus as your savior come directly from your experience or was this knowledge imparted by another in an attempt to interpret your experience?

Vile: I disagree. Knowledge is based on facts. Faith is based on belief.

Vile: I'm curious. Did this knowledge that you must accept Jesus as your savior come directly from your experience or was this knowledge imparted by another in an attempt to interpret your experience?

Appears you're trying to discredit INV's experiences by using semantics to confuse the issue -- asking him for FACTS surrounding his BELIEF.

Or maybe you're just trying to understand what a 'religious experience' feels like without actually having to stoop to admitting you had one??

I don't agree that everyone does this.



I disagree. Knowledge is based on facts. Faith is based on belief. There's a very clear distinction to my mind, and I can't help but notice you gave me no specific examples of knowledge based on a lack of facts or evidence.

Give some examples of your definition of knowledge then, maybe I can offer some of my own suggestions from them.



I had thought so too, but I wasn't certain and rather than read a bunch of old posts, I thought I'd ask.



I'm curious. Did this knowledge that you must accept Jesus as your savior come directly from your experience or was this knowledge imparted by another in an attempt to interpret your experience?


No, its pretty much common knowledge. There are 3 billion Christians on the world. So it was something I knew before I went to the Chruch. Same as you know it now.
I didnt feel the need or have a desire to act upon it before I went to the Church, considering that is pretty much what your question is?
You want to narrow down how I got the feelling so you can explain it and justify your own belief system.
Thats fine, has I have said before I have had the conversation countless times before on these forums.
It's all in how you act upon the knowledge you have and how you received it.

If you were to walk into a Church as you are now and walk out a born again Christian could you explain it to someone else? Could one houre with total strangers listening to someone you think sounds crazy really change who you are?
I have done my best to explain.

Please continue the interrogation.

God zaps something into existence
The writer goes into great detail to explain and problematise rather dry-sounding stuff such as vacuums and inflations and logic. And then this big invisible person who did it all by magic just gets thrown in from nowhere and is barely discussed. It seems invisible magical men get a free pass - the writer doesn't deem this idea worthy of the healthy scepticism he applies to concepts from physics.

The writer goes into great detail to explain and problematise rather dry-sounding stuff such as vacuums and inflations and logic. And then this big invisible person who did it all by magic just gets thrown in from nowhere and is barely discussed. It seems invisible magical men get a free pass - the writer doesn't deem this idea worthy of the healthy scepticism he applies to concepts from physics.
Blob, do you think Christopher Columbus was made up? How 'bout Aristotle or Plato? Joan of Arc? Julius Ceasar? Since you have no tangible proof these people actually existed either, how can you call someone else, whose life was well documented in written history, an 'invisible magical man?'

Just wondering.

Blob, do you think Christopher Columbus was made up? How 'bout Aristotle or Plato? Joan of Arc? Julius Ceasar? Since you have no tangible proof these people actually existed either, how can you call someone else, whose life was well documented in written history, an 'invisible magical man?'

Just wondering.


fairy tales! every last one! :D

Blob, do you think Christopher Columbus was made up? How 'bout Aristotle or Plato? Joan of Arc? Julius Ceasar? Since you have no tangible proof these people actually existed either, how can you call someone else, whose life was well documented in written history, an 'invisible magical man?'

Just wondering.

Forgive me SMW, but Jesus is hardly "well documented". He is referenced in exactly one book, the Bible, and there are no other written records surviving to this day that mention him at all. Odd isn't it?

how can you call someone else, whose life was well documented in written history, an 'invisible magical man?'The author of the article does not claim his god is documented in history. In fact he says nothing whatsoever about it - that's my point.

Jesus is hardly "well documented". He is referenced in exactly one book, the Bible, and there are no other written records surviving to this day that mention him at all. Odd isn't it?He's no better documented than Rama. But for some reason it is never suggested to me that if Plato existed surely Rama did.

I understand your point, but actually I was referring more to this whole discussion than just the author of the article that started it. After all, I think we can all agree that while he may be a smart guy, he's not exactly the one true authority on God, is he?

You comment did make me think about something else I'd like to have the atheist input on though... how did the bible come about? Was it something like 'mass hysteria' where a bunch of men got together and decided to make up stories? Did they start with "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void..." and go from there? What was their motivation?

I know one of the big questions I've had since I was a kid was, "Why don't they mention dinosaurs in the Bible? What about cave people? Scientists KNOW they inhabited the earth for millions of years... how could they not be included someplace between 'without form and void' and Revelations?"

Everytime I asked that question of 'Christians' it seemed to make them uncomfortable because they had no answer. Then I finally ran across one church deacon who simply said, "Because the bible was written by MEN and they didn't know about dinosaurs."

BINGO!

Of course it was MEN who wrote the bible... not God. And having faith means believing those MEN were instructed by God as to what they should write.

So, out of curiosity, how do atheists explain the bible?

You're right, VP... but I was thinking more along the lines of GOD, not Jesus. And I'm sure you would agree there have been many, many books written about GOD.

You comment did make me think about something else I'd like to have the atheist input on though... how did the bible come about? Was it something like 'mass hysteria' where a bunch of men got together and decided to make up stories? Did they start with "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void..." and go from there? What was their motivation?To me the Bible is just one of many ancient, whimsical books that relay fantastical stories laden with vague wisdoms (Ramayana would be another). You'll disagree but I find the bible turgid, badly structured and generally dull and am not sure that there is much in it to explain. I have no idea the specific motivations and dispositions of the authors at the time they wrote it but do know more generally that people write to express themselves, explain the world and tell stories.

Well, dear... it may only be an ancient, whimsical book with unbelievable stories... but it's sold more copies than any other book ever written.

Do you ever wonder how YOU personally grew to be so much more enlightened than 80% of the world's population?

"You'll disagree but I find the bible turgid, badly structured and generally dull and am not sure that there is much in it to explain."

LOL, I don't disagree with that statement at all!! And after all the translators have had their turn at it, it's amazing if it even resembles the original version!

Do you ever wonder how YOU personally grew to be so much more enlightened than 80% of the world's population?
80%? You sure you don't mean 32%?

Anyways, even with 80%, some people could claim to be more intelligent than 95% of the population. IQ of about 130 pops you close to there. So should we say genes? :D

Didn't mean to suggest 80% of the world's population are Christians... but 80% believe in a GOD of some form.

Enjoyed the exchange, B. Hafta run, but hope you'll continue our discussion next week.

:)
SMW

but it's sold more copies than any other book ever written.True, but at least other best sellers actually get read. ;)

Keeping an eye on which ancient mythology is winning the publishing war is not my personal choice of method for establishing truth.

Do you ever wonder how YOU personally grew to be so much more enlightened than 80% of the world's population?Do I detect a hint of sarcasm? Do not be annoyed by my beliefs or think I have an air of superiority. I am merely a product of the demographic I was born into - very many male Brits my age are atheists.

As it happens I'm less enlightened than you and your 80% of the world's population. I'll wager many of that 80% would tell me they know for absolute sure in exquisite detail what life is all about and how best to live it.

Of course being unenlightened it's possible that I'm simply wrong and your 80% are all correct. I admit that sincerely. How about you, SWM? Are you able to admit like me you could be totally plain wrong about all of this?

Appears you're trying to discredit INV's experiences by using semantics to confuse the issue -- asking him for FACTS surrounding his BELIEF.

On the contrary, I'm asking him for FACTS surrounding his KNOWLEDGE. He used that word to describe his BELIEFS, and I'm merely trying to get him to understand the difference.


Or maybe you're just trying to understand what a 'religious experience' feels like without actually having to stoop to admitting you had one??

I will gladly admit that I've never attributed God's hand to any of the experiences I've had in life.

You're right, VP... but I was thinking more along the lines of GOD, not Jesus. And I'm sure you would agree there have been many, many books written about GOD.

I would agree that many books have been written about God, but that in no way suggests that there is any truth to what was written about him. Many books have been written about Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, but that doesn't mean they exist. They might exist, but if they do, it's not because many books mention them.

Blob, do you think Christopher Columbus was made up? How 'bout Aristotle or Plato? Joan of Arc? Julius Ceasar? Since you have no tangible proof these people actually existed either, how can you call someone else, whose life was well documented in written history, an 'invisible magical man?'

Just wondering.

If the books about Columbus claimed he created the world in 6 days, made the Earth stop in its orbit around the sun, or that he turned water into wine, I'd be very skeptical...wouldn't you? As it is, many seperate documents that survive to this day refer to his life, his voyages, and none of them make any claims about him that go beyond the scope of possible human behavior. In short, there is plenty of "tangible proof" that these people existed as living human beings in our past.

Forgive me SMW, but Jesus is hardly "well documented". He is referenced in exactly one book, the Bible, and there are no other written records surviving to this day that mention him at all. Odd isn't it?

I'm not sure that's historically accurate, vile--Didn't the Roman historian Tacitus mention "Cristus" in some of his writings--Tacitus wrote of this approx 40 years within Jesus' time frame.

Give some examples of your definition of knowledge then, maybe I can offer some of my own suggestions from them.

With respect Inv, you are the one who claimed that "There are forms of knowledge that have no proof to them at all". I asked for an example and now you're asking me to define "knowledge" for you. My definition of "knowledge" isn't the issue since it was your statement that prompted my response. However, for the sake of discussion the following definition will suffice:

Knowledge is the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.


No, its pretty much common knowledge.

You mean common belief.


There are 3 billion Christians on the world.

Slightly more than 2 billion actually.


So it was something I knew before I went to the Chruch.

Ok, now we're cooking with gas. I had the impression from your previous statements that you had never had any contact with Christians before or after your "experience" and that you were saying that all your ideas about being "born again" and about having to declare that Jesus is your savior came from you. Now you're saying that you interpreted your experience in terms of what you already had heard from others about Christianity. Fine. :)


Same as you know it now.

Let me be very clear here. I don't "know" that Jesus is my savior, or that he's the son of God, or any of the other commonly held principles of Christianity. Nor do I "believe" any of it.


You want to narrow down how I got the feelling so you can explain it and justify your own belief system.

Not at all. My belief system comes from a scientific outlook on the world, and this outlook would be the same if religion were never invented. God may be desireable to explain the world in your mind, but he/she isn't neccessary in my universe. :)


Thats fine, has I have said before I have had the conversation countless times before on these forums.

And here you are having it again.


If you were to walk into a Church as you are now and walk out a born again Christian could you explain it to someone else? Could one houre with total strangers listening to someone you think sounds crazy really change who you are?
I have done my best to explain.

There seem to be some large gaps in your explanation. It appears you went from "I felt the presence of God" to "you must accept Jesus Christ as your savior", and there's little you've offered to explain that leap of logic.


Please continue the interrogation.

Feeling persecuted? That's common among Christians. I assumed you wanted to discuss this since this is a discussion forum, and you came here and started this thread. If this is seeming like an "interrogation" then perhaps you should cease participating in the discussion.

I'm not sure that's historically accurate, vile--Didn't the Roman historian Tacitus mention "Cristus" in some of his writings--Tacitus wrote of this approx 40 years within Jesus' time frame.

Don't you find it odd that there are no writings made during his lifetime that mention him? The Romans were notoriously anal about keeping records. We have plenty of Roman records from that period and none of them mention Jesus. Is it possible that the records didn't survive? Sure, but the fact remains that the only record that mentions him is a religious text written and held forth as proof of his existence by people who had/have a vested interest in the subject. The only source we have for information about him is an extremely biased one.

If this were the only case of historical records not backing up a Biblical account of events I'd be willing to overlook it as chance, but in many cases where the Bible makes a claim for some extraordinary occurrence it isn't backed up by historical records. Moses' exodus from Egypt at the head of an army of refugees while being pursued by an angry Pharoah is simply not mentioned in the Egyptian records of the time. If you look at those records the only conclusion you can logically arrive at is that the Exodus tale is a complete fabrication. In some cases the Bible mentions events that would have had a world-wide impact e.g. The Great Flood, God making the Earth stand still etc. Oddly enough, the Chinese didn't notice the Earth stopping in its orbit even though they were making some pretty sophisticated astronomical observations around the same time.

Btw, here's a short article on what Tacitus wrote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

With respect Inv, you are the one who claimed that "There are forms of knowledge that have no proof to them at all". I asked for an example and now you're asking me to define "knowledge" for you. My definition of "knowledge" isn't the issue since it was your statement that prompted my response. However, for the sake of discussion the following definition will suffice:

Knowledge is the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.


Maybe we can agree to disagree here?



You mean commen belief.

No knowledge, but thats ok we disagree here.



Slightly more than 2 billion actually.

O.k



Ok, now we're cooking with gas. I had the impression from your previous statements that you had never had any contact with Christians before or after your "experience" and that you were saying that all your ideas about being "born again" and about having to declare that Jesus is your savior came from you. Now you're saying that you interpreted your experience in terms of what you already had heard from others about Christianity. Fine. :)

No, actualy I said you need to have been exsposed to it, as with everything you need some kind of exposer to know anything about it.

My exact words were.
Exposer sure, you need exposer to anything to know of it. That doesnt mean you have to practice the religion to become a Christian.

What I was getting at is that you can know a little about something and still know about it.



Let me be very clear here. I don't "know" that Jesus is my savior, or that he's the son of God, or any of the other commonly held principles of Christianity. Nor do I "believe" any of it.

You know the words, "Do you believe you have to accept Jesus Christ as your savior?"

That was my point. Thats all you need.



Not at all. My belief system comes from a scientific outlook on the world, and this outlook would be the same if religion were never invented. God may be desireable to explain the world in your mind, but he/she isn't neccessary in my universe. :)

That makes no sense, "this outlook would be the same if religion were never invented"
If religion were never invented what choice would you have?


And here you are having it again.

Yes thank you.



There seem to be some large gaps in your explanation. It appears you went from "I felt the presence of God" to "you must accept Jesus Christ as your savior", and there's little you've offered to explain that leap of logic.


Exactly. How can I explain that?


Feeling persecuted? That's common among Christians. I assumed you wanted to discuss this since this is a discussion forum, and you came here and started this thread. If this is seeming like an "interrogation" then perhaps you should cease participating in the discussion.

O.k.

Maybe we can agree to disagree here?

I'm willing to accept that you and I have different definitions for what comprises "knowledge".


No, actualy I said you need to have been exsposed to it, as with everything you need some kind of exposer to know anything about it.

My exact words were.
Exposer sure, you need exposer to anything to know of it. That doesnt mean you have to practice the religion to become a Christian.

What I was getting at is that you can know a little about something and still know about it.

Fine. You based your interpretation of your experience on what you already had been taught about Christianity. No problems there :). The thing is, that if you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a devout Muslim now, based on having felt the presence of Allah in a mosque.


That makes no sense, "this outlook would be the same if religion were never invented"
If religion were never invented what choice would you have?

Why does there have to be a "choice"? The universe is what it is...reality isn't a matter of selecting the correct answer, it's a matter of discovering it.


Exactly. How can I explain that?

I would be utterly astonished if you (or anyone else) could. I don't understand why that fact doesn't bother you. Truth should be easy to explain.