[Guest]

After reading though some of the other discussions and debates, ie. Religious debate, War Club sign up, and Athiest discussion, I feel that the concept of theism is misrepressented on this site.

I would like a thread were people can ask questions and talk about theism, and calmly explain why they believe the way they do.

Its a gross misinterpetation that religous people are ignorant and that they dont believe in science and reasoning.

Anyone can post, but in this thread but I would like to keep to the assumption that there is a god, regardless of who you think he/she/it is. The purpose of this is not to argue over the existence of something that can neither be proven nor disproven. Otherwise it will just turn into the religous debate part 2, and I dont think anyone wants that.

And we will define religion as a belief system, not neccissarily organized.

[Guest]

The thing that seems to get Atheists in a tiff is when Theists use their religious books and teachings to explain the "Truth" and how they feel rather than just freely expressing their ideas of love and peace.

I can see how this would become frustrating to someone who does not regard the scriptures, however, when you read the Religious Debate and Athiest Discussion you see many references pulled from commentaries or books to help them present their version of truth...it is no different. Personally, when I refer to scripture it is because I could not have put it better myself. It's not that I cannot think for myself (I wouldn't have gotten very far in the Den if that were the case) it's more that the scripture lives and breathes inside of me so it is only natural that I would reference it when I discuss my world view...including that of truth.

We as believers cannot expect a non-believer to understand the "Living Word" of God because (and here's another scripture reference for you...) as Paul says in his letter to the Church at Corinth:

"If our Message is obscure to anyone, it's not because we're holding back in any way. No, it's because these other people are looking or going the wrong way and refuse to give it serious attention. All they have eyes for is the fashionable god of darkness. They think he can give them what they want, and that they won't have to bother believing a Truth they can't see. They're stone-blind to the dayspring brightness of the Message that shines with Christ, who gives us the best picture of God we'll ever get." (2 Corinthians 4: 3-4, The Message)

They are stone-blind to the truth. I couldn't have said it better myself!

[Guest]

Anyone can post, but in this thread but I would like to keep to the assumption that there is a god

Ayayay... there's a fine line for me to walk. Well, as long as I'm not required to actually make that assumption I'll try to avoid directly refuting it. That's as much as you can expect from an atheist without excluding them.

I can see how this would become frustrating to someone who does not regard the scriptures, however, when you read the Religious Debate and Athiest Discussion you see many references pulled from commentaries or books to help them present their version of truth...it is no different. Personally, when I refer to scripture it is because I could not have put it better myself. It's not that I cannot think for myself (I wouldn't have gotten very far in the Den if that were the case) it's more that the scripture lives and breathes inside of me so it is only natural that I would reference it when I discuss my world view...including that of truth.

There's a subtle point worth making here. As an atheist I tend to reject belief and requirements for "absolute truth" (such a requirement would, IMHO, be unfulfillable, since any opinion is open to question). I try to avoid referencing other people's arguments too much since (a) it implies that I consider all that this person says, including the way they say it, to be absolutely correct, and (b) it smacks too much of an appeal to authority (even though it isn't one). Neither of these is desirable. If I did reference someone else's argument I would certainly want the reader to read it as critically as if I had made it. Essentially I'd be saying, "here's a logical argument, I think it holds up, can you argue against it?".

Scriptural reference can be different in that it is often considered to be true or at least authoritative, without requiring proof (which, since scripture rarely takes the form of logical argument, tends to be absent). dnae is right that such reference tends to get atheists' backs up, certainly in my case. I object to the idea of using a book as your authority on "truth" instead of thinking things out for yourself, and scriptural reference often gives the impression that this is what has happened. Of course this may not be your intent when referencing scripture, but unless your formation of ideas is truly independent, there is at least an element of that.

Going back a bit (sorry, I've just got round to reading this topic):

Science and Religion absolutely go hand in hand. When God created the universe and everything in it he did so with "divine design" so that there would be a system by which all things function.

The compatibility of science and religion interests me. Personally I find them to be incompatible in two areas:

1) Invocation of the "supernatural". This is sometimes used as a catch-all for anything too illogical or unsupported by evidence to be explained any other way, so we say "Ahh... It's beyond science, it's supernatural". Used for example to support the first cause argument in cases where atheists say "if all complex things need a creator, who created God?". Answer: "Ahh... God is supernatural and so your logic does not apply here". If theists can abandon this sort of cop-out and find a more rational approach, then your beliefs can be compatible with science. But simply excluding certain topics from critical thought is not scientific, and that's what the "supernatural" is.

2) Faith is intrinsically unscientific. Having faith is typically a case of having a conviction about something which is out of proportion to the evidence supporting it.

If you took faith and the supernatural out of religion, perhaps it could be compatible with science. Belief in God would simply be based on the strength of evidence supporting God's existence. We would not make assumptions about the correctness of holy books. Our understanding of the nature of God would be based on unbiased observation. But then, why would you need religion? Surely the nature of religion is to promote particular sets of beliefs without questioning them. How scientific could that ever be?

My brother-in-law, Scott...very brilliant scientist...came to a point in his life, at the age of 32 where he could no longer deny the existance of a higher power. The more he noodled through the scientific evidence, the more convinced he became that the existance of the universe and of man was not by accident, but the work of a Creator. To the total aghast of his parents, he devoted his heart and his life to God.

I would love to know if there are any athiests out there who could possibly have a more intimate understanding of the functioning of life and the universe than Scott.

I don't know how intimate Scott's understanding of life and the universe is, but I'd love to find out. As it stands, you have presented us with an appeal to authority which suggests that Scott knows something we don't about scientific reasons to believe in God. Meaningless as an argument, but tantalising nevertheless. I don't suppose you could persuade Scott to log on and tell us what it is that convinced him? I've been trying to get someone to come up with a good scientific reason to believe in God for months now, but no success. Honestly, I'd love to know.

I'd also like to know whether Scott's experience has led him to believe in the Christian God, with all the supporting sub-beliefs that this entails (as opposed to, say, forming an independent science-based opinion about the nature of God). If so, what evidence is that based on? Does he consider the Bible to be an authoritative source? If so, why? There's a big jump from believing in "a Creator" to believing in a creator with human qualities who is interested in the affairs of human beings and occasionally breaks His own laws of physics to interfere with those affairs, who listens to prayer and is influenced by it, who sends people's souls (which therefore must exist) to heaven when they die (or maybe not depending on whether we did what He required of us when we were alive), who sent his son to earth etc etc. Does Scott believe in any of that extra stuff? If so, how did he make that jump? His status as a Very Clever Person is not enough for me to take it on faith, particularly considering the existence of so many Equally Clever People who have not come to the same conclusion. But really, if there's a line of reasoning behind all this, let's hear it! (maybe in a different topic)

[Guest]

Thanks for the input octo, I think you did a good job in sticking within the parameters of the discussion.

"If you took faith and the supernatural out of religion..." This could never happen, and as you stated, religion would be pointless. Mostly because faith and the supernatural are what most religions are all about.

I'd also like to hear more details about PG's Scott. I think his story is very interesting and I would love if PG could get him to answer a few of your questions, because I think they would be very insightfull to this thread.

[unreality]

I agree with everything Octopuppy said, because he is the Word of God

lol jk But I still agree with everything he said ;D And I too want to hear more about Scott's exact beliefs

[Guest]

Thank you for the respectful way you addressed my posts.

I object to the idea of using a book as your authority on "truth" instead of thinking things out for yourself, and scriptural reference often gives the impression that this is what has happened. Of course this may not be your intent when referencing scripture, but unless your formation of ideas is truly independent, there is at least an element of that.

Although I suppose there are those out there who came to have a relationship with the God of the Bible by reading the Bible (or having it read to them), I among many put my faith in Christ before I had ever laid a hand on a Bible. I grew up in an agnostic family who never discussed or especially sought after religion. And so it was that when I encountered Christ for the first time I knew nothing at all about the Christian faith. I did not even know that Jesus died for our sins and was ressurected. But I KNEW that I had experienced God on intimate level and that led me to desire to read the Bible and learn more about his teachings. I do see the Bible as authoritative because I believe it is the direct word of the Creator and Ruler of the universe. He hasn't steered me wrong yet.

As it stands, you have presented us with an appeal to authority which suggests that Scott knows something we don't about scientific reasons to believe in God.

You're right. Without knowing any of you or your educational background I am making the assumption that Scott is more learned in the areas of Evolution and Biological science than anyone on this forum. That is a brash assumption on my part and I hope that I have not offended any of the many many other brilliant members of BD. However, because of his background and his ground-breaking research in those areas, he has become an authority world-wide among his colleagues - which is why I felt very safe to say that he probably knows more about it.

I don't suppose you could persuade Scott to log on and tell us what it is that convinced him?

I would love nothing more on this earth than to have Scott join this thread. Unfortnately, Scott died of brain cancer earlier this year. However, he did so with a peace and knowledge that he would pass into eternity with Christ.

Here is a short blurb from the Cornell Chronicle about his achievements and his death (so that you know I'm not making him up.): http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March0...amson.obit.html (the "extended family in Kansas includes me ) I believe I had posted this link somewhere on the Religious Debate thread as well when I brought up Scott there.

I've been trying to get someone to come up with a good scientific reason to believe in God for months now, but no success. Honestly, I'd love to know.

I will save you the trouble of seeking out an answer...there is none. Like EJL said, religion without faith is dead.

I'd also like to know whether Scott's experience has led him to believe in the Christian God, with all the supporting sub-beliefs that this entails (as opposed to, say, forming an independent science-based opinion about the nature of God). Does Scott believe in any of that extra stuff? If so, how did he make that jump?

I will answer as best as I know from what he said in our many conversations about the subject: Yes, Scott believed in the Christian God and all the extras that come with it. How did he make that jump from emperical scientific evidence to belief in the supernatural? Faith. Scott's experience with God was much like my own in that he first questioned, then sought, then experienced, then believed by faith. Unfortunately, Scott had just come into his faith shortly before his diagnosis with brain cancer because it would have been amazing to have him write a thesis of sorts on his journey with Science and Faith.

If you want to understand more about his coming to this decision you can listen to a portion of the sermon given at his church the Easter Sunday following his death. The whole sermon is good, but the portion about Scott is about 3/4 of the way through at the 24:00 mark...to the end (about 8 minutes).

http://www.cor.org/worship-sermons/sermons...-Easter-Sunday/

If you are interested in listening to the "Conversations with an Athiest" series you can find them in the archives of this site in Jan-Feb 2007. "Where Science and Religion Meet" is found in the Jan-Feb 2006 Archives.

Edited September 11, 2008 by puzzlegirl

[Guest]

I agree on the most part, Dnae. Everything in the Bible and everything in my personal experience with God shows that he is loving and just. He looks at a man's heart. But...he also very clear that men are without excuse to understand his existance due to his presence in creation (nature) alone. And while not everyone is exposed to the teachings of Jesus, those who are (like almost everyone in America and other free nations) are held to higher accountability. You cannot look God in the face and deny him but expect to get into heaven because you served in a soup kitchen, donated money to AIDS research, and cared for your dying parent. If you are presented with the knowledge of Christ and out-and-out reject him, then it doesn't matter how you live your life. Deeds alone cannot earn you a spot in heaven. Eternal life is a gift of Gad given by grace...it cannot be earned no matter what wonderful things we do.

Will God "punish" the African tribesman for not knowing his name and not adhereing to his word? NO! God knows the difference between ignorance and rejection. However, if that tribesman looks around him and does not acknowledge in his heart that there is something greater than him in the universe, then he will be held accountablt to that.

Why does someone who doesn't believe there are gods/God deserve to suffer through torture worst than is possibly imaginable for eternity? I can imagine some pretty horrible things [being raped, beaten, etc. (I can imagine worse things, but I'd rather not type them.)] that I don't think any decent person should suffer through, especially a good, kind, caring person. Can you please explain why someone deserves this just for picking the wrong god to believe in/ not believing in a god?

[Guest]

Why does someone who doesn't believe there are gods/God deserve to suffer through torture worst than is possibly imaginable for eternity? Can you please explain why someone deserves this just for picking the wrong god to believe in/ not believing in a god?

Well, first off, God does not desire anyone to suffer...it is those who deny him that choose of their own free will to spend eternity apart from him. And, being that God IS love (which includes all the properties of love: peace, joy, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control) when he removes himself from their presence (again, by their own choice) then the torment that ensues is due to an existance without LOVE.

Why does someone who does not believe deserve this? God doesn't force anyone to love him or to want to be with him. What would be the point of being worshipped if it is by a bunch of robots programmed to praise you? That's not genuine love. It HAS to be an act of free will.

And don't forget...God's existance is evident in all of creation, so men are WITHOUT excuse as to not acknowledge him.

I hope that answers your questions. If not, re-word it and I'll try again.

[unreality]

Still, though, she has a point. If God is so loving why not just throw everyone in heaven, no matter what?

[Guest]

And don't forget...God's existance is evident in all of creation, so men are WITHOUT excuse as to not acknowledge him.

------

How is the existence of the Christian God evident in all creation? Can you give reasons?

If you were born into a Jewish family then you would most likey believe that Jesus was not God. You would still be pretty much the same person, but you would deserve to go to hell? Oh wait, nevermind, then all the Christians would be going to hell...

[Guest]

And don't forget...God's existance is evident in all of creation, so men are WITHOUT excuse as to not acknowledge him.

------

How is the existence of the Christian God evident in all creation? Can you give reasons?

If you were born into a Jewish family then you would most likey believe that Jesus was not God. You would still be pretty much the same person, but you would deserve to go to hell? Oh wait, nevermind, then all the Christians would be going to hell...

I would be glad to answer your questions, but EJL stated that he did not want this thread to turn into the religious debate...and that we are supposed to presume that God exists. However, since I already went on that tangent with you I don't want to leave you hanging. So, very quickly, about creation - since God is the designer of the universe his thumbprint is visible in everything in it: from the planets, to the ecosystems, to our gastrointestinal tract, to a deer tick.

Here are some good sites to check out that address a lot of the tough questions people have about God/Faith/Jesus:

http://www.carm.org/objections.htm

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/toughquestions/

I can't say that I agree 100% with everything on these sites...but pretty darned close.

[Guest]

Still, though, she has a point. If God is so loving why not just throw everyone in heaven, no matter what?

I think I already answered that here:

God doesn't force anyone to love him or to want to be with him. What would be the point of being worshipped if it is by a bunch of robots programmed to praise you? That's not genuine love. It HAS to be an act of free will.

but feel free to check out the sites I listed. Perhaps we could also start a new thread called "Stump the Christian" where all of this kind of Q&A would be appropriate.

[unreality]

hehe

btw sorry about your friend Scott. Tis unforunate

[Guest]

hehe

btw sorry about your friend Scott. Tis unforunate

Thank you. Scott was my brother-in-law but he was as close as a brother. I was blessed to be able to spend so much time with him before he died. He was an exceptional human an many levels.

[Guest]

Still, though, she has a point. If God is so loving why not just throw everyone in heaven, no matter what?

This is way of base here, but I cant help but reply.

If you are asking about the Christian god, then the only answer to this question is from a Christian perspective, so dont get mad about scripture references or anything like that.

Chrisitans believe that the reason people go to hell is not because God doesnt love them, its because of sin. God is holy, and sin is the oposite, God will not be in the presence of sin. When Isaiah was taken up to heaven (chapeter 6), he saw God and his quote is "Woe is me, I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips..." Mordern day translation "Holy cr@p! I'm going to die because I am unclean (which is the opposite of holy) and I have seen God."

In the Old Testament, the Jews could become cleansed of their sins if they sacraficed a pure, unbleamished, lamb or goat or dove to god. The wages of sin is death, if something else dies FOR you, then you are free from that sin. Christians believe that Jesus, the son of God, offered himself as a sacrafice for our sins once and for all, no more animal sacrifices were needed. Thats why he is called the Lamb of God. Christians are saved from sin by accepting Jesus' sacrafice. Not because they are good people, or because of any good deeds they do. Ted Bundy became a Christian in prison before he was killed, most christians would say that he is in heaven. Not because he was the best, most pure man to ever live, but because he accepted the forgiveness of his sins.

[Guest]

Thank you for the respectful way you addressed my posts.

Although I suppose there are those out there who came to have a relationship with the God of the Bible by reading the Bible (or having it read to them), I among many put my faith in Christ before I had ever laid a hand on a Bible. I grew up in an agnostic family who never discussed or especially sought after religion. And so it was that when I encountered Christ for the first time I knew nothing at all about the Christian faith. I did not even know that Jesus died for our sins and was ressurected. But I KNEW that I had experienced God on intimate level and that led me to desire to read the Bible and learn more about his teachings. I do see the Bible as authoritative because I believe it is the direct word of the Creator and Ruler of the universe. He hasn't steered me wrong yet.

[i dont believe that on the toc it doesnt say":author god"(lol probably spelled wrong)

although im still christian i dont think the bible is law thats what happened to the 9/11 hijackers the thought the quran was law(and it is n saudi arabia were 3/4 are from)

[Guest]

Although I suppose there are those out there who came to have a relationship with the God of the Bible by reading the Bible (or having it read to them), I among many put my faith in Christ before I had ever laid a hand on a Bible. I grew up in an agnostic family who never discussed or especially sought after religion. And so it was that when I encountered Christ for the first time I knew nothing at all about the Christian faith. I did not even know that Jesus died for our sins and was ressurected. But I KNEW that I had experienced God on intimate level and that led me to desire to read the Bible and learn more about his teachings.

Could you explain what you mean by "encountered" then? Did you meet Yeshua or something?

I do see the Bible as authoritative because I believe it is the direct word of the Creator and Ruler of the universe. He hasn't steered me wrong yet.

It doesn't read at all like a direct word from anybody though. It is clearly a set of stories from many varied authors. The tales are theirs, not the word of any one entity.

I will save you the trouble of seeking out an answer...there is none. Like EJL said, religion without faith is dead.

And that is precisely where I see a very serious problem: Faith as far as I can tell is a highly irrational and potentially dangerous thing. It is...well I have given it this little definition:

It is just that as far as I can tell; the willful abandonment of reason, believing something for no good reason.

If you have a better definition, one that at all renders it at all rational, I would love to see it. But as of this moment, nothing has steered me from that definition. And it is one that truly saddens, and frightens me to hear people exalting "Faith as Virtue" or at all offering it as in anyway a good/positive thing. Or even admitting that it is how they cam to believe anything, without a hint of embarrassment or shame.

I will answer as best as I know from what he said in our many conversations about the subject: Yes, Scott believed in the Christian God and all the extras that come with it. How did he make that jump from emperical scientific evidence to belief in the supernatural? Faith.

In other words he just abandoned reason when it couldn't get him were he wanted to go? That is what a leap of Faith is to me: admitting that one can find no rational reason to accept something, but choosing to believe it anyway - in other words; willfully abandoning reason when it suits their personal desires to believe something irrational.

Scott's experience with God was much like my own in that he first questioned, then sought, then experienced, then believed by faith. Unfortunately, Scott had just come into his faith shortly before his diagnosis with brain cancer because it would have been amazing to have him write a thesis of sorts on his journey with Science and Faith.

You ever consider that perhaps his affliction - damage to his brain (the seat of his very consciousness and being) - might have played a part in this?

If you want to understand more about his coming to this decision you can listen to a portion of the sermon given at his church the Easter Sunday following his death. The whole sermon is good, but the portion about Scott is about 3/4 of the way through at the 24:00 mark...to the end (about 8 minutes).

http://www.cor.org/worship-sermons/sermons...-Easter-Sunday/

Just so ya know; I can't right now. My computer's kind of poked, so I'm not ignoring it.

[Guest]

AD - Your comments are interesting (to put it politely) but wholly inappropriate on this thread. Please move your post to the Religious Debate thread...this is a thread of Theists who pre-suppose the existence of God. We welcome your curiosity and encourage you to read along and perhaps even post a comment in context, but this is no place for Atheistic Propaganda, especially given in the condescending tone used in your posts. I appreciate your respect for myself and the other Theists who are enjoying discussing our faith on this thread without being assaulted for it.

[Guest]

well put

[Guest]

AD - Your comments are interesting (to put it politely) but wholly inappropriate on this thread. Please move your post to the Religious Debate thread...this is a thread of Theists who pre-suppose the existence of God. We welcome your curiosity and encourage you to read along and perhaps even post a comment in context, but this is no place for Atheistic Propaganda, especially given in the condescending tone used in your posts. I appreciate your respect for myself and the other Theists who are enjoying discussing our faith on this thread without being assaulted for it.

[moderating]

ADParker did not assault you nor did he use a "condescending tone". He engaged you in conversation and asked you questions and made comments in a respectful manner directly regarding your posts. No one is prohibited from taking part in discussion in any threads based on their religion or lack of one and posts won't be moved to another thread for that reason.

[/moderating]

[Guest]

AD - Your comments are interesting (to put it politely) but wholly inappropriate on this thread. Please move your post to the Religious Debate thread...this is a thread of Theists who pre-suppose the existence of God. We welcome your curiosity and encourage you to read along and perhaps even post a comment in context, but this is no place for Atheistic Propaganda, especially given in the condescending tone used in your posts. I appreciate your respect for myself and the other Theists who are enjoying discussing our faith on this thread without being assaulted for it.

Actually if you re-read my post you should note that at no point did I even hint at my beliefs (or lack thereof), nor did I insult or even question the ultimate validity of yours. You no doubt read that into it, as you happen to know that I am an atheist from that other thread.

I merely enquired how you "encountered" your messiah. Didn't even imply that you did not in fact do so - your comment was simply rather light in detail so I asked for more. And then commented on that rationality of Faith; which again does not question the ultimate truth of your belief, just this one method of achieving it. It's like accepting that you are quite right in your belief that crocodiles are little changed since the time of the dinosaurs, but seriously questioning your claim that you know this to be so because your dog told you so

As it happens, and I am being quite careful in this thread to strictly adhere to this, I am not an anti-theist: I have no particular problem with people believing in gods (or fairies or unicorns for that matter - just emphasising the point) or in the possibility of their existence. What I do have a problem with is people believing anything (yes; even if it is completely true) based on bad reasoning, or worse; through the willful abandonment of reason! One major reason for that is the potential consequences - if one believes one thing on certain poor reasoning (or no reasoning at all) then they are liable to use that same method elsewhere, if not made aware the fallacious nature of it, to potentially disastrous results.

My concerns in other words are quite incidental of the ultimate truth of the god-hypotheses. Even assuming God (YHWH, Allah, Krishna...) does in fact exist, are your (or anybodies) reasons for believing this to be so at all valid?! If, for your edification, your reasons are valid and sound, and you can establish as the case for me, then in all likelihood I too would become a believer - Seriously; give me a good reason and I, valuing reason, would positively embrace it.

I could go further and say: okay on the assumption that some god(s) exist, and even going so far as to assume it is indeed the one you happen to believe in with all you attribute to him/her/it; One has to ask why you have chosen to abandon any rational assessment and attempt to establish the truth of this and have instead simply chosen to believe it without a shred of evidence or rationale! I mean, as a science appreciator there are a number of things that I accept (not "believe" but that's just a science thing) that a number of things are true - Evolution and the Big Bang for instance; but I am absolutely fascinated and eager in seeking whatever further evidence about them that I possibly can. And, of course, as a Reasonist, am quite prepared to accept that if the evidence turns out to be lacking (although in those cases it is highly unlikely and would involve the overturning of a whole lot of currently well established evidence) and/or the evidence instead starts to turn in another direction, then so too must (rationally) my acceptance.

If you don't wish to answer my questions, then don't, no biggie. By the way; what exactly was it that you found to be:

1. "Atheistic Propaganda" and

2. "condescending tone"

in that post of mine?

[Guest]

I would love nothing more on this earth than to have Scott join this thread. Unfortnately, Scott died of brain cancer earlier this year.

I'm very sorry to hear it.

Here is a short blurb from the Cornell Chronicle about his achievements and his death (so that you know I'm not making him up.): http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March0...amson.obit.html (the "extended family in Kansas includes me ) I believe I had posted this link somewhere on the Religious Debate thread as well when I brought up Scott there.

Now I'm even sorrier. I'd have loved to hear what he had to say, particularly given the field he worked in. Oh well, too late now

I will answer as best as I know from what he said in our many conversations about the subject: Yes, Scott believed in the Christian God and all the extras that come with it. How did he make that jump from emperical scientific evidence to belief in the supernatural? Faith. Scott's experience with God was much like my own in that he first questioned, then sought, then experienced, then believed by faith.

I think you maybe missed what I was driving at there. I was questioning not only how Scott believed, but also what he believed. I suspected (although I guess we will never know) that he may have accepted an all-too-common false dilemma:

Either

1) The universe has no creator and no purpose.

or

2) There is a human-like God, the Bible is the Word of God, God listens to prayer, Christ died for our sins, we have souls which go to heaven when we die, and so on.

Now lets say proposition 1 turns out not to be true. In my experience there is no reason to think so, and most people who reject it do so just because they don't like the idea. But it would appear that Scott felt uncomfortable with it, hopefully for rational reasons.

In that case, this does NOT imply proposition 2. Far from it. It simply leaves an enormous host of other possibilities. In fact I would expect anyone of a scientific mind to be extremely wary of proposition 2, which contains all kinds of unsupported hypotheses, many of which require belief in systems which are bizarre, supernatural and unnecessary.

Why would a person jump to so many conclusions? Typically it happens because they are in a social framework that encourages this false dilemma. For one thing it would be presumptuous in the extreme to reject all the other religions in the world just because Christianity predominates in your social category. For another, there is no reason to believe that any religion has got it right (they do, after all, tend to disagree on quite a lot). Maybe there is a Creator who set the universe in motion and simply likes to watch events unfold in His perfect creation without feeling the need to fiddle about with it (or concern Himself with the affairs of humans). Maybe there is a God who loves us all but does not feel the need to discriminate about who He sends to heaven (makes a lot more sense since systems of reward/punishment are usually set up to control behaviour - applying such a system invisibly after we die is pointless). Maybe such a God does not care for songs which praise Him (His self-esteem is just fine) or prayers which seek to curry favour. Maybe He put us on this earth, gave us rational minds, and kept himself invisible to us for a reason: so that we can enjoy and appreciate the physical world He has provided for us without wasting time on things we can't know about. There are many possibilities which make a lot more sense than the confused antiquated nonsense that religions expect us to swallow. If you believe in God, why not form your own opinion? In that case you should certainly steer clear of religion.

Oh, and as for using faith to believe in the supernatural, that's like saying "I chose to believe in things that I not only don't understand but will not even try to understand (since I am confident that I will never be able to rationalise them). And I found that it was possible, through the abandonment of reason!". Concepts such as the "supernatural" and "faith" are just excuses for sloppy thinking. Maybe Scott found a way to believe in God without abandoning reason. Since he is not here to tell us I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Guest]

[moderating]

ADParker did not assault you nor did he use a "condescending tone". He engaged you in conversation and asked you questions and made comments in a respectful manner directly regarding your posts. No one is prohibited from taking part in discussion in any threads based on their religion or lack of one and posts won't be moved to another thread for that reason.

[/moderating]

Martini - Your bias is shown in both the Religious Debate and now this thread. Yes, you have the power to moderate, so I cannot stop you form posting (or unfortunately from removing my well-thought-out posts) however, unless you can keep yourself unbiased, please try to resist commenting.

Here is the condescending tone I spoke of:

It is just that as far as I can tell; the willful abandonment of reason, believing something for no good reason.If you have a better definition, one that at all renders it at all rational, I would love to see it. But as of this moment, nothing has steered me from that definition. And it is one that truly saddens, and frightens me to hear people exalting "Faith as Virtue" or at all offering it as in anyway a good/positive thing. Or even admitting that it is how they cam to believe anything, without a hint of embarrassment or shame.

I find it very unfortunate that, of this entire forum, those of us who believe in God cannot find a place to converse and share our thoughts and experiences. I understood why UR wanted a thread without the Theists popping-off their beliefs unsolicited. I guess we made the mistake of thinking we could keep the thread open to everyone for replies. Yet, for some reason, is it the Chrisitans who are always targeted for trying to "push" their beliefs on others or for being "close minded."

[Guest]

I find it very unfortunate that, of this entire forum, those of us who believe in God cannot find a place to converse and share our thoughts and experiences. I understood why UR wanted a thread without the Theists popping-off their beliefs unsolicited. I guess we made the mistake of thinking we could keep the thread open to everyone for replies. Yet, for some reason, is it the Chrisitans who are always targeted for trying to "push" their beliefs on others or for being "close minded."

I don't really think anybody is trying to push any beliefs on anyone else. We're all free to have a say. ADParker has made a good point about faith. You can answer it or not answer it but you can hardly ask him not to make that point.

And by the way, I think UR's decision to keep theists off the atheist discussion really sucked. Why shouldn't a theist have something useful to say about atheism? I'd just like to advertise the fact that as of this morning

THE ATHEIST DISCUSSION IS NOW OPEN TO THEISTS

by order of Martini. Quite right too.

[Guest]

Further to my last post (in an effort to keep things on track), it seems to me that since this is a theist discussion (rather than a religious one) there's no harm in having a pop at religion. As I pointed out in this post, there's a big logical jump to make from theism to religion, which so many people seem happy to throw themselves at without giving it a second thought. That's the problem with faith, you're supposed to jump right in and accept all sorts of nonsense hook line and sinker just because you want there to be a god. Theism does not imply that either religion or faith is a good idea. If you want to talk about theism you can't really expect people to accept your version of theism without pointing out the problems with it.

[Guest]

Martini - Your bias is shown in both the Religious Debate and now this thread. Yes, you have the power to moderate, so I cannot stop you form posting (or unfortunately from removing my well-thought-out posts) however, unless you can keep yourself unbiased, please try to resist commenting.

[moderating]

I've shown no bias. My "commenting" in this thread was due to your taking it upon yourself to tell a poster his comments are inappropriate and should have them moved. What's inappropriate is for you to play junior mod. If you find comments inappropriate, condescending, etc., report them.

Any further complaints about my moderating or discussion on this matter should be done in private; this thread is not the place for it.

[/moderating]