Why can't people just be honest about religion?

[orogenicman]

I can agree that you haven't put forth much of anything. You acknowledge that your beliefs are absent support yet you insist that those unsupported beliefs are somehow defendable in some sort of alternate reality.

I can only come to conclusions about reality based upon the empirical data. Your beliefs in spirit realms and supernaturalism is absent support, as you admit. We use our reason to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look as knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probability, and possibility) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

Ideally, we modify and adapt our models of reality to accommodate new information, but in practice this can be quite difficult and painful. As a direct result of our irrational attachments to inadequate models, which may have been well intentioned in the past, we have a tendency to alter our perceptions instead of our models. Reason, the great author of our models of reality, then, can interfere with our perceptions, particularly if we fail to recognize our emotional attachment to certain pivotal ideas.

I have never insisted my beliefs are defendable nor have I ever bothered to defend them. Again, that is entirely in your head. I suspect you don't even know what my beliefs are.

You speak of knowledge, and that is what I am speaking of. Specifically as to how it differs from belief. Knowledge requires information, belief does not. Any position taken in the absence of information can not be called knowledge, it can only be called belief. You can apply knowledge to a particular belief to determine its validity, but that only speaks to that belief. For example, I can apply our knowledge of the workings of the solar system to conclude the belief the sun is Apollo in his chariot is invalid. But that knowledge does not mean there never was a being called Apollo, just that that particular belief about Apollo is invalid.

So, drop the insistence on referring to belief and apply reason to what you actually know. You have made it clear that your position is "gawds" do not exist. What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing. Please don't reference any beliefs, this is about what you know about the thing itself.

Not true. Scientists use null hypotheses all the time. They are vary useful in eliminating 'noise' and redirecting our attention to more useful information. As for your apollo analogy, that is a claim based on superstition and myth. As such, there is no reason at all to suppose that Apollo is anything other than supertition and myth, and can certainly be discounted as invalid. In other words, while there may not be direct physical evidence to discount the existence of apollo based on our understanding of the sun and the solar system, there certainly is plenty of evidence that the mythical accounts of apollo are made up and so, based on our understanding of mythology and supersitition itself, are not real.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomena. This is what you start with and is not a conclusion. The sentence you underlined referred to a position, which is pretty much the same thing as a conclusion. I doubt you are going to find many scientists who will agree that an untested hypothesis - one for which there is an utter lack of evidence - constitutes a valid conclusion.

I agree with you on Apollo, which was my point. Now please point to the evidence about god beginning by telling what it is. What is it that you claim isn't there.

I highly recommend that you read this article:

God s and the null hypothesis Secular Woman

Read it. I nice little justification for her beliefs, but there wasn't a single shred of evidence provided in support. A null hypothesis is useless without evidence. Otherwise, I could prove you were a red head simply because there was no evidence to claim you were blond.

She completes her article with the following: "And it seems to me if gods really did exist, providing evidence of their existence wouldn’t be so hard."

Really? How does she arrive at that conclusion? Precisely what evidence would she expect and why? Her entire position is based upon the assumption she knows the attributes of something she has absolutely no evidence for. This is pure belief.

I sweat you are like a broken record. Nothing sinks in, does it? I hate that for you. Try reading up on what a null hypothesis is:

Null hypothesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Rubbish. Do you believe in tooth fairies, Zeus, goblins, or a flat Earth? No? I suspect that you don't believe in thos things because there is no evidence that they exist. Likewise, there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural. So my position is not a belief, it is a skeptical disbelief based on what we know of the world around us.

No, I don't. Tooth fairies - I had kids and know who puts the money under the pillow: evidence. Zeus - harder because that myth could have been based upon something else, but I believe it to be just another man made fiction. There is no sign of a residency at the top of Mt. Olympus: evidence. Goblins - see Zeus. Flat earth - this has been shown to be untrue with evidence. Evidence is what makes your examples different than this subject. So let's stay on topic.

Now, once again. Tell me what god is. What are its attributes? What evidence should we look for? And, more importantly, what are you basing that on? Your position you stated quite clearly - it isn't there. So don't dance about with a cop-out word like "disbelief" as if that gives you a get out of jail free card. Tell me what isn't there and the evidentiary basis for that position. Because if you can't, then it is belief and nothing but belief.

There is also no sign of residency inside of any church, synogogue, temple, or mosque. There is no universal definition of "god". Each religion has it's own definition. Having said that, there are certain characterisitics they have in common. Such as omnipotence, immortality, omniscence, all powerful, etc. These traits are used to explain real world events and phenomenon, such as hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, disease, and death (it is the will of god, god is punishing man for his sins, etc), events and phenomena mankind could not explain any other way for thousands of years. They are also used to create rules to control the lives of worshippers. The problem with all these characteristics is that we see no evidence that anything in the universe has these traits. Moreover, science has rather successfully explained these phenomenon without resorting to "god did it". And so we see that these religions resort to the "god of the gaps" argument, where their god is assigned to ever decreasing bits of the natural world that science has yet to explain, or else they claim that their god is not of this world, in which case one can ask what motive would a being from some other world have for intervening in this one? One can also argue that if this god is not of this world (and how would anyone ever know this to be true?), he doesn't have a stake in it, and so why would anyone worship it?

The fact is that personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one personal revelation over that of any other. Farmer Bob may be the most honest, law abiding, religious man anyone has ever known, but we still need evidence that the virgin Mary visited him while he sat on his combine in his back field.

None of that is relevant. I have already said there is no evidence to support either side of the issue, so pointing out there is no evidence for the Theist side doesn't matter. You have stated that Atheists acknowledge that what isn't there - isn't there. That is a claim and any claim requires support - or it is just belief. The issue here is not whether the Theistic side is based upon pure belief - it obviously is. My position is that the Atheistic side is also based upon pure belief. That the two position differ only in their conclusion, not in how they arrive at that conclusion.

So I ask again.... what is it you claim isn't there and how do you know that? If you can't answer that question, then all you are doing is making a statement of pure belief. No more evidence based or rational than claiming God did it all.

In case you were unaware, you simply declaring my response irrelevant, and that there is no evidence to support either side doesn't make it so. It is your opinion, nothing more. My claim does have support in the same way that statements claiming that the tooth fairy is not real has support. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but dude, it is very clear from a scientific standpoint that if there was ever a grand landlord, he left the reservation a long time ago, leaving no trace behind that he ever existed, I might add. And so clutching onto a minute possibility that a god exists despite the utter lack of affirming evidence is not only desperate, but may even be a kind of neurosis.

I declare there is no evidence to support either side based upon experience.

You can declare that dinkleberries are more valuable than diamonds for all I care.

 

[sealybobo]

I can agree that you haven't put forth much of anything. You acknowledge that your beliefs are absent support yet you insist that those unsupported beliefs are somehow defendable in some sort of alternate reality.

I can only come to conclusions about reality based upon the empirical data. Your beliefs in spirit realms and supernaturalism is absent support, as you admit. We use our reason to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look as knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probability, and possibility) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

Ideally, we modify and adapt our models of reality to accommodate new information, but in practice this can be quite difficult and painful. As a direct result of our irrational attachments to inadequate models, which may have been well intentioned in the past, we have a tendency to alter our perceptions instead of our models. Reason, the great author of our models of reality, then, can interfere with our perceptions, particularly if we fail to recognize our emotional attachment to certain pivotal ideas.

I have never insisted my beliefs are defendable nor have I ever bothered to defend them. Again, that is entirely in your head. I suspect you don't even know what my beliefs are.

You speak of knowledge, and that is what I am speaking of. Specifically as to how it differs from belief. Knowledge requires information, belief does not. Any position taken in the absence of information can not be called knowledge, it can only be called belief. You can apply knowledge to a particular belief to determine its validity, but that only speaks to that belief. For example, I can apply our knowledge of the workings of the solar system to conclude the belief the sun is Apollo in his chariot is invalid. But that knowledge does not mean there never was a being called Apollo, just that that particular belief about Apollo is invalid.

So, drop the insistence on referring to belief and apply reason to what you actually know. You have made it clear that your position is "gawds" do not exist. What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing. Please don't reference any beliefs, this is about what you know about the thing itself.

Not true. Scientists use null hypotheses all the time. They are vary useful in eliminating 'noise' and redirecting our attention to more useful information. As for your apollo analogy, that is a claim based on superstition and myth. As such, there is no reason at all to suppose that Apollo is anything other than supertition and myth, and can certainly be discounted as invalid. In other words, while there may not be direct physical evidence to discount the existence of apollo based on our understanding of the sun and the solar system, there certainly is plenty of evidence that the mythical accounts of apollo are made up and so, based on our understanding of mythology and supersitition itself, are not real.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomena. This is what you start with and is not a conclusion. The sentence you underlined referred to a position, which is pretty much the same thing as a conclusion. I doubt you are going to find many scientists who will agree that an untested hypothesis - one for which there is an utter lack of evidence - constitutes a valid conclusion.

I agree with you on Apollo, which was my point. Now please point to the evidence about god beginning by telling what it is. What is it that you claim isn't there.

I highly recommend that you read this article:

God s and the null hypothesis Secular Woman

Read it. I nice little justification for her beliefs, but there wasn't a single shred of evidence provided in support. A null hypothesis is useless without evidence. Otherwise, I could prove you were a red head simply because there was no evidence to claim you were blond.

She completes her article with the following: "And it seems to me if gods really did exist, providing evidence of their existence wouldn’t be so hard."

Really? How does she arrive at that conclusion? Precisely what evidence would she expect and why? Her entire position is based upon the assumption she knows the attributes of something she has absolutely no evidence for. This is pure belief.

If someone told me there may be a god/creator of the universe, I would entertain the thought. But if they told me they knew for certain because god visited, I would immediately be skeptical. And trying to scare me into believing with stories of hell ain't gonna get you anywhere with me.

I googled why do you think humans made up god(s) and this appeared. I like this answer. Makes sense to me. Why doesn't it to you? Not even the remote possibility we could be right?

Best Answer: My personal belief to why god was created is that it seemed to explain what was happening in nature both on earth and out in space as the origins of belief arguably started with the sun. I think it was created to explain power beyond imagination that man had no control over, the sun, seasons, life and death. To fill the void until science came along and gave these things reason!
But arguably man created god to give their life some purpose and reason to work and as you said 'be good'. Religion as an establishment was indeed set up as a method of control... control a pesons belief you can control their actions, daily routine, morality. You can moniter the ideas of the people by attending sermons. The Romans knew this and utilised it greatly.

 

[sealybobo]

Not my words. I got this from yahoo answers dot com:

It gave them a valid reason to do what they wanted to do anyway. We are talking about feudal times here where might won out. People had to obey kings and emperors etc and the only thing which outranks them and gives people the justification to disobey is a god. Strauss 'The Life of Christ' shows how Jesus appeared and said exactly the things society was moving towards - the Jews were going through social change and many no longer wanted to continue the old ways - they wanted less ritual, less draconian laws and more peace and love - Jesus appeared saying all this and they had a valid reason to change. Did Jesus say all the things credited to him or did the story spread verbally grow like chinese whispers to become a new way of behaving? Probably the latter given how much of Jesus' story is mixed up with older gods like Mithra, Horus and Krishna.

This is true of nearly all gods - certainly the monotheistic ones - people wanted social change and a god suddenly appeared advocating all the things they wanted. They then had a valid reason for change. Have you noticed that since democracy has arrived and the common people have had a say in society no new gods have appeared?

 

[sealybobo]

wow I'm not alone:

Gods were created by men who needed to help explain the world around them and their place in it. Stories piled atop stories and the next thing you know you have a religion. It made sense to their primitive brains that some "GodDidIt."

However, as promptly as it was created by man, it was corrupted by men who use it to control the money and usurp the power of the people.

That's why everyone should treat religions like the explosive it is and carefully skirt it. Atheism is the only sane answer.

 

[sealybobo]

Fantastic:
A god or gods was an insta answer to unfathomable questions, and has nothing to do with "so humans would be good people." Where does the sun go? Why are the seasons changing? What is this wrath of thunder and lightening? What happens to us after we die? These are all questions (and merely a few) that anthropologists understand gives rise to the belief in "supernatural" forces and gods.

All this from googling why do you think humans made up god.

 

[sealybobo]

Rubbish. Do you believe in tooth fairies, Zeus, goblins, or a flat Earth? No? I suspect that you don't believe in thos things because there is no evidence that they exist. Likewise, there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural. So my position is not a belief, it is a skeptical disbelief based on what we know of the world around us.

No, I don't. Tooth fairies - I had kids and know who puts the money under the pillow: evidence. Zeus - harder because that myth could have been based upon something else, but I believe it to be just another man made fiction. There is no sign of a residency at the top of Mt. Olympus: evidence. Goblins - see Zeus. Flat earth - this has been shown to be untrue with evidence. Evidence is what makes your examples different than this subject. So let's stay on topic.

Now, once again. Tell me what god is. What are its attributes? What evidence should we look for? And, more importantly, what are you basing that on? Your position you stated quite clearly - it isn't there. So don't dance about with a cop-out word like "disbelief" as if that gives you a get out of jail free card. Tell me what isn't there and the evidentiary basis for that position. Because if you can't, then it is belief and nothing but belief.

There is also no sign of residency inside of any church, synogogue, temple, or mosque. There is no universal definition of "god". Each religion has it's own definition. Having said that, there are certain characterisitics they have in common. Such as omnipotence, immortality, omniscence, all powerful, etc. These traits are used to explain real world events and phenomenon, such as hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, disease, and death (it is the will of god, god is punishing man for his sins, etc), events and phenomena mankind could not explain any other way for thousands of years. They are also used to create rules to control the lives of worshippers. The problem with all these characteristics is that we see no evidence that anything in the universe has these traits. Moreover, science has rather successfully explained these phenomenon without resorting to "god did it". And so we see that these religions resort to the "god of the gaps" argument, where their god is assigned to ever decreasing bits of the natural world that science has yet to explain, or else they claim that their god is not of this world, in which case one can ask what motive would a being from some other world have for intervening in this one? One can also argue that if this god is not of this world (and how would anyone ever know this to be true?), he doesn't have a stake in it, and so why would anyone worship it?

The fact is that personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one personal revelation over that of any other. Farmer Bob may be the most honest, law abiding, religious man anyone has ever known, but we still need evidence that the virgin Mary visited him while he sat on his combine in his back field.

None of that is relevant. I have already said there is no evidence to support either side of the issue, so pointing out there is no evidence for the Theist side doesn't matter. You have stated that Atheists acknowledge that what isn't there - isn't there. That is a claim and any claim requires support - or it is just belief. The issue here is not whether the Theistic side is based upon pure belief - it obviously is. My position is that the Atheistic side is also based upon pure belief. That the two position differ only in their conclusion, not in how they arrive at that conclusion.

So I ask again.... what is it you claim isn't there and how do you know that? If you can't answer that question, then all you are doing is making a statement of pure belief. No more evidence based or rational than claiming God did it all.

In case you were unaware, you simply declaring my response irrelevant, and that there is no evidence to support either side doesn't make it so. It is your opinion, nothing more. My claim does have support in the same way that statements claiming that the tooth fairy is not real has support. Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but dude, it is very clear from a scientific standpoint that if there was ever a grand landlord, he left the reservation a long time ago, leaving no trace behind that he ever existed, I might add. And so clutching onto a minute possibility that a god exists despite the utter lack of affirming evidence is not only desperate, but may even be a kind of neurosis.

It's a double whammy: the hyper-religious sufferIng a neurosis.

I found this question:

I was a Christian recently enough to remember what it felt like to believe the Creator of the universe talked to me, to believe I would go to heaven and unbelievers would go to hell. But something’s not quite right with that. Supposedly, my parents really believe that I am going to hell now that I’m an atheist. They believe their son, whom they love dearly, is going to be tortured forever. Literally. And yet, they don’t seem very upset by this. Sure, they’re upset that their son has rejected most of the values and “truths” they tried to instill in me. They’re upset that I reject their way of life as both deluded and immoral. That’s a major blow for any caring parent to take. But they don’t seem that upset that their beloved son will be tortured forever in hell. If they really believed that wouldn’t I see some serious mourning? A little more distress?

But this is not what Christians do for their friends and family who they really believe are on the verge of falling into eternal torture, even though they say they really believe this, and even though they feel they really believe this. Millions of Christians say they believe this stuff, but they don’t act like it.

If you really believe this, you shouldn’t have to tell yourself, “You’re right, I really should try harder to evangelize.” No, if you really believed, you would already have that motivation. You wouldn’t need to try to manufacture it.

- See more at: Do Christians REALLY Believe

 

[orogenicman]

Not my words. I got this from yahoo answers dot com:

It gave them a valid reason to do what they wanted to do anyway. We are talking about feudal times here where might won out. People had to obey kings and emperors etc and the only thing which outranks them and gives people the justification to disobey is a god. Strauss 'The Life of Christ' shows how Jesus appeared and said exactly the things society was moving towards - the Jews were going through social change and many no longer wanted to continue the old ways - they wanted less ritual, less draconian laws and more peace and love - Jesus appeared saying all this and they had a valid reason to change. Did Jesus say all the things credited to him or did the story spread verbally grow like chinese whispers to become a new way of behaving? Probably the latter given how much of Jesus' story is mixed up with older gods like Mithra, Horus and Krishna.

This is true of nearly all gods - certainly the monotheistic ones - people wanted social change and a god suddenly appeared advocating all the things they wanted. They then had a valid reason for change. Have you noticed that since democracy has arrived and the common people have had a say in society no new gods have appeared?

Oh but many new sects have certainly sprung up. I'd say that since demoncracy arrived, more sects have been invented than ever!

 

[sealybobo]

Not my words. I got this from yahoo answers dot com:

It gave them a valid reason to do what they wanted to do anyway. We are talking about feudal times here where might won out. People had to obey kings and emperors etc and the only thing which outranks them and gives people the justification to disobey is a god. Strauss 'The Life of Christ' shows how Jesus appeared and said exactly the things society was moving towards - the Jews were going through social change and many no longer wanted to continue the old ways - they wanted less ritual, less draconian laws and more peace and love - Jesus appeared saying all this and they had a valid reason to change. Did Jesus say all the things credited to him or did the story spread verbally grow like chinese whispers to become a new way of behaving? Probably the latter given how much of Jesus' story is mixed up with older gods like Mithra, Horus and Krishna.

This is true of nearly all gods - certainly the monotheistic ones - people wanted social change and a god suddenly appeared advocating all the things they wanted. They then had a valid reason for change. Have you noticed that since democracy has arrived and the common people have had a say in society no new gods have appeared?

Oh but many new sects have certainly sprung up. I'd say that since demoncracy arrived, more sects have been invented than ever!

If you start counting from when the ancient Greeks first invented democracy absolutely.

 

[Meriweather]

If someone told me there may be a god/creator of the universe, I would entertain the thought. But if they told me they knew for certain because god visited, I would immediately be skeptical. And trying to scare me into believing with stories of hell ain't gonna get you anywhere with me.

I googled why do you think humans made up god(s) and this appeared. I like this answer. Makes sense to me. Why doesn't it to you? Not even the remote possibility we could be right?

Best Answer: My personal belief to why god was created is that it seemed to explain what was happening in nature both on earth and out in space as the origins of belief arguably started with the sun. I think it was created to explain power beyond imagination that man had no control over, the sun, seasons, life and death. To fill the void until science came along and gave these things reason!
But arguably man created god to give their life some purpose and reason to work and as you said 'be good'. Religion as an establishment was indeed set up as a method of control... control a pesons belief you can control their actions, daily routine, morality. You can moniter the ideas of the people by attending sermons. The Romans knew this and utilised it greatly.

This 'best answer' didn't even mention what is probably the number one reason people believe in God--and that reason is experiences of God. Sure, it makes sense that if there is creation, there is a Creator; that if there is intelligence, it comes from a greater intelligence. Other stories could have accounted for this, stories of mortal men who arrived with shooting stars, had children, but died as is the way of mortals.

It is the experiences of God, of the spirit world, that focused mankind on God, not merely on mortals.

The other side of the coin is why don't some people believe in God? The answer to that question is that God does not act in ways they believe a God should act.

 

[Meriweather]

I found this question:

I was a Christian recently enough to remember what it felt like to believe the Creator of the universe talked to me, to believe I would go to heaven and unbelievers would go to hell. But something’s not quite right with that. Supposedly, my parents really believe that I am going to hell now that I’m an atheist. They believe their son, whom they love dearly, is going to be tortured forever. Literally. And yet, they don’t seem very upset by this. Sure, they’re upset that their son has rejected most of the values and “truths” they tried to instill in me. They’re upset that I reject their way of life as both deluded and immoral. That’s a major blow for any caring parent to take. But they don’t seem that upset that their beloved son will be tortured forever in hell. If they really believed that wouldn’t I see some serious mourning? A little more distress?

Most Christians do not believe non-Christians and atheists go to hell. A great many of those who do believe in Once Saved Always Saved. Parents may believe if their child was saved at one time, there is nothing to worry about.

But this is not what Christians do for their friends and family who they really believe are on the verge of falling into eternal torture, even though they say they really believe this, and even though they feel they really believe this. Millions of Christians say they believe this stuff, but they don’t act like it.

If you really believe this, you shouldn’t have to tell yourself, “You’re right, I really should try harder to evangelize.” No, if you really believed, you would already have that motivation. You wouldn’t need to try to manufacture it.

What Christ asked his disciples to tell the world is sins are forgiven (repentance for the forgiveness of sins). We are asked to be living examples of freedom, that there is a paradox in play: Obedience is what frees; disobedience (sin) is what enslaves. We can free ourselves from turning away (repenting) of sin.

And above all: God loves us, cares about each one of us.

 

[hobelim]

I am very confident that the ancient Greek gods and Egyptian gods that were invented before the modern religions don't exist.

Of course you are right but that in itself does not mean that the stories are not based on actual events of a time when gods walked the earth, if you understand that during the times in which these stories were written it was the belief that human beings could be gods.

It is also important to note that ancient people were fond of riddles and brain teasers that only the intelligent could solve through rational thought.

Nope. They may have been inspired by great men and beautiful women but they were not gods. You'd have to suspend reality to believe that. Do you believe in ghosts and angels? Of course. You're only human

You missed the point. Of course they were not gods but people of the time believed that a human being could be a god so it follows then that many stories, myths and legends about gods, angels and demons, heavenly creatures, beasts of the field, and low-life's, were all based on human beings.,"And so the Lord God said to the serpent....etc,."

And yes I believe in ghosts, angels and demons, talking serpents and talking donkeys, the wild beasts of the field, the torment of those in hells keeping, and rising from the dead. One would have to suspend reality to not believe.

You must have never lived in a big city.

You are engaged in debates with some of those very same characters except this ain't no fairy tale. Fortunately for you, you seem to be immune to the poison of talking serpents. You don't realize that they are talking serpents, exactly as described in the Bible, but at least you know that what they are trying to inject into your mind is poison.

Careful dude. I see you like shooting fish in a barrel, but the ones who collect them are certainly not fish and if you don't know what type of creature that you are dealing with the chances are that ultimately you will end up with the worse injury.

 

[sealybobo]

I am very confident that the ancient Greek gods and Egyptian gods that were invented before the modern religions don't exist.

Of course you are right but that in itself does not mean that the stories are not based on actual events of a time when gods walked the earth, if you understand that during the times in which these stories were written it was the belief that human beings could be gods.

It is also important to note that ancient people were fond of riddles and brain teasers that only the intelligent could solve through rational thought.

Nope. They may have been inspired by great men and beautiful women but they were not gods. You'd have to suspend reality to believe that. Do you believe in ghosts and angels? Of course. You're only human

You missed the point. Of course they were not gods but people of the time believed that a human being could be a god so it follows then that many stories, myths and legends about gods, angels and demons, heavenly creatures, beasts of the field, and low-life's, were all based on human beings.,"And so the Lord God said to the serpent....etc,."

And yes I believe in ghosts, angels and demons, talking serpents and talking donkeys, the wild beasts of the field, the torment of those in hells keeping, and rising from the dead. One would have to suspend reality to not believe.

You must have never lived in a big city.

You are engaged in debates with some of those very same characters except this ain't no fairy tale. Fortunately for you, you seem to be immune to the poison of talking serpents. You don't realize that they are talking serpents, exactly as described in the Bible, but at least you know that what they are trying to inject into your mind is poison.

Careful dude. I see you like shooting fish in a barrel, but the ones who collect them are certainly not fish and if you don't know what type of creature that you are dealing with the chances are that ultimately you will end up with the worse injury.

So you say one would have to suspend reality to NOT believe in ghosts, angels and demons? That's all I needed to hear.

 

[hobelim]

So you say one would have to suspend reality to NOT believe in ghosts, angels and demons? That's all I needed to hear.

Don't be so emotionally reactive. Use your head. I do not believe in invisible disembodied entities that whisper either to do good or evil in peoples heads. To me angels and demons are as real as the people here debating all sides of every issue.I'm also sure that you have not been able to make that great leap of intelligence to comprehend biblical metaphors that are as relevant today as they ever were. As far as ghosts are concerned a voice from the grave spoke earlier in this thread saying something to the effect that "Obedience is what frees; disobedience (sin) is what enslaves. We can free ourselves from turning away (repenting) of sin. " all the while defiantly persisting in the sinful practice of worshiping that which is made by human hands, has no life and is not God, (which according to scripture results in death) and teaching others to do the same which according to scripture amounts to murder, a perfect example of that ever elusive talking serpent.

You need to see to believe?

Open your mind and see what is right in front of your eyes.

 

[sealybobo]

So you say one would have to suspend reality to NOT believe in ghosts, angels and demons? That's all I needed to hear.

Don't be so emotionally reactive. Use your head. I do not believe in invisible disembodied entities that whisper either to do good or evil in peoples heads. To me angels and demons are as real as the people here debating all sides of every issue.I'm also sure that you have not been able to make that great leap of intelligence to comprehend biblical metaphors that are as relevant today as they ever were. As far as ghosts are concerned a voice from the grave spoke earlier in this thread saying something to the effect that "All we need to do is repent to be forgiven" while defiantly persisting in the sinful practice of worshiping that which is made by human hands, has no life and is not God.

You need to see to believe?

Open your mind and see what is right in front of your eyes.

I have opened my heart and mind and see no god. Sorry. And trust me, I'm as good a person as they come. I'm a flaming progressive liberal hippy so I know you probably wouldn't agree with my politics, but that is to be expected. I know a lot of conservatives and they all like me personally, even though they hate my political views.

I do comprehend biblical metaphors. Or allegories. The thing is, hundreds of years ago, even today, many Christians took those allegories or metaphors literally. And the church allowed them. Now that people are too smart to buy that, they admit they are metaphors or allegories. At what point will you admit that all the Jesus myths are just allegories and metaphors?

You need to be gullible to see it. You have to want it. Sorry, science and logic don't work that way. If its real I'll see it regardless of if I want to see it or not. And believe me I wanted it to be true for a very long time. I guess I'm just too smart for it. I've looked. OH boy have I looked. If I didn't look hard enough, I'd call myself an agnostic. I would say I'm not sure. But I call myself an atheist because I truly believe, with all my heart and brain, that religions are made up and not good for us. Therefore, if a god/creator exists, it doesn't matter whether I believe in your religion. If anything good deeds matter and I'm a good guy. But of course a cult would say that's not enough. You have to buy in to our stories, which now you admit are just stories?

There was a time when religion served a purpose. It even serves a purpose today. But so does alcohol. So do drugs. They make you feel good. But they are not good for us. But in a free country, everything in moderation should be ok including your religion.

And open your mind to realize you've been duped. If you were born in the middle east you'd be praying 5 times a day to Allah.

This article says the first bible was written 400 years after Christ. Completely made up!!!

BBC NEWS UK Magazine The rival to the Bible

 

[hobelim]

I do comprehend biblical metaphors. Or allegories. The thing is, hundreds of years ago, even today, many Christians took those allegories or metaphors literally. And the church allowed them. Now that people are too smart to buy that, they admit they are metaphors or allegories. At what point will you admit that all the Jesus myths are just allegories and metaphors?

Admit it? I have been saying that all along. You problem is that you have stopped there and dismissed the entire subject as false without using the sense God gave a second grade child to try and comprehend the meaning of the figurative language used denying yourself the benefit of the wisdom and teaching imparted in this way, above the heads of the superstitious the irrational and the deceptive.

If you understand biblical metaphors what is the story of the bodily ascension of Jesus about?

How can you interpret what is written in a way that conforms to reality without adding or subtracting a single word..

If you do not look for it, you will never find it.



I wouldn't put all my money on the bet that its all just bullshit especially after you acknowledge that there are metaphors and allegories that remain to be deciphered. Do yourself a favor, take a break, add this to your speculations.

You have opened your heart and mind and see no God? Is it any wonder? You can't see talking serpents even when they are biting your foot.

 

[sealybobo]

I do comprehend biblical metaphors. Or allegories. The thing is, hundreds of years ago, even today, many Christians took those allegories or metaphors literally. And the church allowed them. Now that people are too smart to buy that, they admit they are metaphors or allegories. At what point will you admit that all the Jesus myths are just allegories and metaphors?

Admit it? I have been saying that all along. You problem is that you have stopped there and dismissed the entire subject as false without using the sense God gave a second grade child to try and comprehend the meaning of the figurative language used denying yourself the benefit of the wisdom and teaching imparted in this way, above the heads of the superstitious the irrational and the deceptive.

If you understand biblical metaphors what is the story of the bodily ascension of Jesus about?

How can you interpret what is written in a way that conforms to reality without adding or subtracting a single word..

If you do not look for it, you will never find it.



I wouldn't put all my money on the bet that its all just bullshit especially after you acknowledge that there are metaphors and allegories that remain to be deciphered. Do yourself a favor, take a break, add this to your speculations.

You have opened your heart and mind and see no God? Is it any wonder? You can't see talking serpents even when they are biting your foot.

The ascension implies Jesus' humanity being taken into Heaven. People reading that want to go too.

Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

 

[hobelim]

The ascension implies Jesus' humanity being taken into Heaven. People reading that want to go too.

LOL... No wonder you think its all bullshit. That's about all your mind has been able to produce.

 

[danielpalos]

Exactly, why can't the right just be honest about it being "moral" to simply Tax the wealthiest into Heaven.

 

[sealybobo]

The ascension implies Jesus' humanity being taken into Heaven. People reading that want to go too.

LOL... No wonder you think its all bullshit. That's about all your mind has been able to produce.

What does that story tell you?

 

[basmonahan]

Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.”

- Ken Ham

Faulty syllogism after faulty syllogism. Ken Ham is a one-dimensional "apologist," and has no business inserting himself into scientific or philosophical debates. It is very possible to believe in Genesis as a story explaining basic life tenets, and be a wonderful Christian. Millions of Christians do this everyday.