Scorned for positive image...?

[pbharvey]

My caveat - if you ackowledge this history and love your faith, the brain is at least engaged. If you willfully ignore it, and then feign surprise when some of us don't, well then.....

 

-MKL

 

Many of us do acknowledge it ; we just don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

[moshe_levy]

Proving the existence of God to someone is like proving the existence of a dream. There is no evidence. There is some measurable brain activity and sometimes some physical reaction, but there's no way for anyone to peek inside your head and see the dream being played out in your mind's eye. A person experiencing a relationship with God, much like one experiencing a dream, cannot share that exact experience with others, but can only tell them about it. It doesn't make the unseen and unknowable (to some) dream less of a reality, it only makes it personal to the one dreaming.

 

This is well written and the idea holds true to many people, myself included. An atheist or scientist would say, "You can't prove a negative," (modus tollens) but as we know, many a mind has been changed by circumstances. I stare at night at my 7 month old girl as she sleeps, and I really do believe she is a gift from above - her perfection is a random chance? Not to me.

 

There is a pretty funny mockumentary by comedian Bill Maher called "Religulous." You can agree or disagree with his take on things and obviously he is not religious, but one truism he claims at the end is that certainty in the absense of fact is a truly scary condition. It is in fact at the heart of this debate. Rabid atheists who cannot conceive of a higher power in the absence of direct proof - as if the workings of nature do not serve in some way as proof - are just as delusional in my view as the faithful who overlook objective facts any time they disagree with the teachings of faith. The only thing the atheists have going for them that the religious don't is, they have not participated in mass murder to prove their point (if you could statism as a religion, at least).

 

It would really benefit people in my view to step back, say "I don't know," and not feel a need to fill that hole with something. Just be comfortable not knowing. You're in good company, since you are in fact with every other person who ever existed in recorded history.

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

The only thing the atheists have going for them that the religious don't is, they have not participated in mass murder to prove their point (if you could statism as a religion, at least).

 

Atheists, while starting late in the game, have racked up a body count second to none. There are superficial reasons for mass murder, and underlying reasons almost without end, depending on how many layers of the onion you want to peel off. Atheists may not have committed mass murder to prove an atheistic point of dogma, but I'll bet the underlying reasons aren't that much different from mass murders committed by anyone else or any other group.

[moshe_levy]

Nahh, not if you count statism as a religion, as I mentioned above. Substitute God with "Dear Leader" and force worship with death or imprisonment as the only alternative, and you have statism. No different from the Inquisitions or Crusades, except here the Dear Leaders elevated themselves to God's perch.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

Nahh, not if you count statism as a religion, as I mentioned above. Substitute God with "Dear Leader" and force worship with death or imprisonment as the only alternative, and you have statism. No different from the Inquisitions or Crusades, except here the Dear Leaders elevated themselves to God's perch.

 

-MKL

 

Wow, yet another issue to decide: what is meant by religion versus secular. Was the battle portrayed in the Book of Exodus between Egypt and Israel a battle between a secular versus a religious state? I see them both as being highly religious states, they simply had different ideas as to who god is: Phaoroah or the God of Israels forefathers?

 

OK, then what about atheist China? Secular or religious? Can we categorically place them in the secular column or does it depend upon how the people there view their govt (as virtual God's rather than simply humans)?

 

What is the ultimate definition of "statism"?

[texasaggie97]

We all have a right to our opinion here and I have enjoyed the conversation.

 

I have enjoyed my faith and I have become a better person. I have learned that I am here to serve others not myself. Do I do that perfectly no, but I am human not God. It is easy to find all the problems with people who believe but you need to know that is the very reason why we need God. You might not understand that because you are not familiar with Grace. We need Jesus because we fall short of his glory. Yes, we have extremest that do evil things in the name of God. Does that surprise you? It give people ammo to use against the cause.

 

What cause do you support? I am sure we can finds some flakes in your camp that stand for the same positions you do and you would not want them being your spokes person.

 

We need to be careful when act like everyone falls under the same umbrella. Racist think like this that all people of one color are alike and there is no hope so lets just get rid of them all. I disagree, I believe that there are good christians out there and I believe that there are good non christians. You do not have to be a christian to do good deeds.

 

Here is where my argument ends. If I am wrong what do I lose? If you are wrong what do you lose? I pray that you find the right path whatever that is but most non believers fight against christianity because they fear the truth. The truth is there is a creator it is impossible you came from nothing. Matter must come from somewhere it cannot just come from nothing.

 

The first law of thermdynamics says that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This law is an observation that appears to hold true in all time and space, and forms a foundation for science.

 

Evolutionists claim that at the beginning (Big Bang) the laws did not apply and all matter and energy simply came into being out of absolutely nothing, for no reason (?).

 

Creationists believe that at the beginning God created all matter/energy ex nihilo (from nothing), for a purpose.

 

Both of these positions are faith positions about events that happened in the past and which cannot be proved. Personally I find that Creation is a much better explanation of the observations in the present. The Big Bang has many many problems for which ideas such as inflation, dark matter, dark energy have simply been invented to hold the idea together.

 

Someone or something had to create earth, planets, people. I know it is hard to wrap your mind around but it is truth and it is easier to just explain it away, but those are the facts and believe me you are not in control.

 

I enjoy reading all that posts here and it allows me to see that we have a lot of really intelligent people with passion for what they believe. This is the American way and why I love the freedom of speech. Thanks for your .02 I have learned lots.

 

The only thing I know 100% is I will die one day.

[moshe_levy]

What is the ultimate definition of "statism"?

 

I'm sure most of us have read or at least heard of the popular fiction book by Khaled Hosseini called "The Kite Runner." I have never seen a better definition of statism than as defined there. The book takes place in Afghanistan which has had both extremes of statism and theocracy. I'm paraphrasing, but the protagonist's father remarks that "First the Russians came, and said there is no God, and that we must sacrifice our individual selves to the state. Then the Taliban came, and said there is only God, that that we must sacrifice our individual selves to the Him. Either way, we lose ourselves in sacrifice to whatever they tell us to, or we die."

 

If we count Hitler as an atheist, and Stalin, and the restof that ilk, surely they do give relgious mass murder a run for the money. But, in fact, these notorious murders operate exactly as a theocratic religion with the power to govern does - complete and total sacrifice of individual freedom and thought. To that end, there is no difference - worship God or die vs. worship the state or die. As Baba said in the Kite Runner, "either way...."

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

Nahh, not if you count statism as a religion, as I mentioned above. Substitute God with "Dear Leader" and force worship with death or imprisonment as the only alternative, and you have statism. No different from the Inquisitions or Crusades, except here the Dear Leaders elevated themselves to God's perch.

 

-MKL

 

Wow, yet another issue to decide: what is meant by religion versus secular. Was the battle portrayed in the Book of Exodus between Egypt and Israel a battle between a secular versus a religious state? I see them both as being highly religious states, they simply had different ideas as to who god is: Phaoroah or the God of Israels forefathers?

 

OK, then what about atheist China? Secular or religious? Can we categorically place them in the secular column or does it depend upon how the people there view their govt (as virtual God's rather than simply humans)?

 

What is the ultimate definition of "statism"?

 

I think that if we stick with the generally understood meanings of religious and secular we are less likely to confuse each other. Religious means that someone or some tangible or intangible object is held up as god or gods, and is viewed as such by some group of people. Neither Stalin nor Mao held themselves out as gods, and I suspect both would have been appalled if that title had been applied to them. Phaoroah, as far as I know, did and was so recognized by some significant group of his people. The fact that Stalin and Mao may have held more actual power than any phaoroah doesn't make their political ideology a religion anymore than [moderator edit: no political personalities, please] "any given American President"

[moshe_levy]

Here is where my argument ends. If I am wrong what do I lose? If you are wrong what do you lose? I pray that you find the right path whatever that is but most non believers fight against christianity because they fear the truth. The truth is there is a creator it is impossible you came from nothing.

 

The first argument is a non-argument which is called "superstition." People who suffer from OCD (obsessive / compulsive disorder) truly believe that if they don't perform silly rituals, a terrible fate (which has no basis in reality) will befall them. So threatening a non-believer with a totally man-made negative circumtance such as "hell" - a completely made up Christian invention - doesn't amount to much of an argument, at all. Truly moral people do not need the threat of "hell" to act morally - they do so because it's the right thing to do and is, in and of itself, its own reward.

 

Second, nobody I know of "fights Christianity" (as if) because they "fear the truth." That presupposes many flawed assumptions, chief among them that Christianity is in fact "the truth." Prove it - you can't. Why? Because truth must, by definition, involve fact. Christianity is not based on fact, and neither is any other major religion. Second, that people who argue against Christianity "fear" the truth instead of "are trying to discover the truth." Do you think it we sat down to a discussion that I would be trembling at the idea of truth? Hardly, my friend. Truth is good in all cases. Third a horribly inaccurate view that to believe in Christianity is to believe in God and that other religions do not have this same basic belief in a God (or Gods or whatever). So many flaws, so much to dissect and point out as one parabale piled on top of another with the victim as truth itself, intellectual rigor, and human lives in many cases.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

My caveat - if you ackowledge this history and love your faith, the brain is at least engaged. If you willfully ignore it, and then feign surprise when some of us don't, well then.....

 

-MKL

 

Many of us do acknowledge it ; we just don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

For the record, I thought this was a very good point. Here in New England, I am surrounded by devout Catholics. I have yet to meet on who is not completely horrified by the priest child sex abuse scandal. They are reeling for sure, and many have left the church as a result, but they also feel that they cannot be responsible for the acts of others, only themselves.

 

On the other hand, Christianity takes a unique form of criticism because unlike most other ideologies, it claims to be created by God himself. Human philosophies do not make this claim. Therefore "truth" as revealed by religion is subject to a particularly thorough form of criticism because of it's claims of divine origin.

 

"Extrordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as has been said.

[Ken H.]

But what happens when those convictions result in the limiting of someone else's freedom simply because their expressions of freedom are not in alignment with religious convictions?

 

The reality is that the freedoms of certain classes of citizens in this country are compromised by religion, and that right there is the problem we have to deal with in a manner that is consistent with our nations intents and purposes, whatever those intents and purposes may be. I suppose that's what we have to decide upon as an informed electorate.

And that’s the whole problem. Religion(s) are NOT content to let each person choose. To let me take my choice at the metaphorical Y. Instead it tries to influence me (the many) to agree with, conform with their particular Kool-Aid. In a myriad of ways. Everything from the rather iniquitous door knocking (which happened to me AGAIN last Thursday when I was working at home), to public prophetizing (still rather harmless in general), to trying to influence government decisions to be constant with a particular theology (harmful), to out and out wars killing people.

 

To me it’s very similar to trying to convince people somewhere that your social/economic model is the best. The only real way you can succeed is by example, by proof of results. If a religion wants to successfully convince us that they are the ‘right’, then their best, and actually only, tool is that of example. Show me (the many) how following it has and will benefit both myself and mankind as a whole.

 

But they’re (most) are not, or at least not just, doing that. Instead they are using force in a multitude of ways to force their beliefs on others. (Actually to force vompliance with them, no on can successfully force another to truly believe something.)

 

 

Even the “in the end we’ll all know’” concept (sorry haNNAbONE) is outrageously presumptuous. It assumes that everyone has belief that there will be an “in the end” at which we’ll all find out (who was right and who was wrong). It dismisses out of hand those that don’t believe that there will be an “at the end”, rather only that we each simple end. I wasn’t before I was, then I am, then I will not be. Simple as that.

 

 

I find it quite contradictory that a country which one of its core pillars (amongst other things of course) is supposedly freedom of religion, has spent so much of its history (and increasingly so) trying to suppress just that!

 

[tallman]

Let's see, from this thread, if you're a believer, you're wrong because you can't prove there is...

However, if you're a non-believer/atheist, you're wrong because you can't prove there isn't...

 

Seems like both sides believe their POV.

 

Isn't believe a synonym for faith?

 

Since both sides are believers in their faith...

[Ken H.]

Nahh, not if you count statism as a religion, as I mentioned above. Substitute God with "Dear Leader" and force worship with death or imprisonment as the only alternative, and you have statism. No different from the Inquisitions or Crusades, except here the Dear Leaders elevated themselves to God's perch.

 

-MKL

Wow, yet another issue to decide:

Oh you thing we're actually going to decide something here James!?!

[Ken H.]

Let's see, from this thread, if you're a believer, you're wrong because you can't prove there is...

However, if you're a non-believer/atheist, you're wrong because you can't prove there isn't...

 

Seems like both sides believe their POV.

 

Isn't believe a synonym for faith?

 

Since both sides are believers in their faith...

Actually I think that’s a very true way to put it.

 

What gets my blood boiling is those that think I don’t have “faith” because I don’t believe the same as they. Usually in the context of belief of/in their particular theology.

 

I have faith in a whole bunch of things. The core tenets of most religions just isn’t on the list. Although I quite recognize that many of them have many good lessons (buried in the somewhere!) about how humans should best behave.

 

[Dave McReynolds]

Here in New England, I am surrounded by devout Catholics. I have yet to meet on who is not completely horrified by the priest child sex abuse scandal.

 

I know they probably really do feel that way, and are not being cynical in the expression of their horror. However, I can't help but be reminded of Captain Renault's comment in Casablanca "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" Has there ever been a time in the history of the Catholic Church where similar scandals were not occuring on a regular basis?

[Ken H.]

Here is where my argument ends. If I am wrong what do I lose? If you are wrong what do you lose? I pray that you find the right path whatever that is but most non believers fight against christianity because they fear the truth. The truth is there is a creator it is impossible you came from nothing. Matter must come from somewhere it cannot just come from nothing.

Two points, one is the presumption that we all believe that there is an end game “I was right, you were wrong” or visa-versa of course, point yet to come. In our individual life or that of humanity as a whole. The argument is still trying to frame a non-believers future in a believer’s context. It fails to even give consideration to an argument that such a determination point, in and of itself, doesn’t even exist.

 

I don’t fear the truth. My truth. My truth is that I never have to fear being wrong because that point (when I might be proven wrong) doesn’t exist. People say, “Aren’t you scared at judgment day it will turn out you were wrong not to believe in __________?” No, I don’t believe in such thing as a 'judgment day’ to start with. The judgment of me as a person is the here and now.

 

Second, to the point of, ‘How can you believe there is not a creator, you/we/everything had to come from somewhere.’ I don’t believe we came from no where. I believe we don’t know where we came from.

 

Humans have been struggling with trying to answer the ‘where from’ question since we first attained consciousness and self-awareness. We always will struggle, there is much, MUCH we don’t know. BUT that struggle to learn, learn, and learn some more is part of what makes us (somewhat) unique on the planet. Those who profess to know the answer to the ‘where from how; question, i.e. “God did it”, actually work against the quest for answers, actually slow mankind’s progress to understanding. And that’s the biggest sin of all of religion.

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Here is where my argument ends. If I am wrong what do I lose? If you are wrong what do you lose?

 

You are making Pascal's wager:

 

Pascal's Wager is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that since the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved through reason, but since in his view there was much to be gained from wagering that God exists (and little to be gained from wagering that God doesn't exist), a rational person should simply wager that God exists (and live accordingly).

 

I pray that you find the right path whatever that is but most non believers fight against christianity because they fear the truth. The truth is there is a creator it is impossible you came from nothing.

 

Many atheists say the opposite: that Christians cling to their belief because they fear the truth, and that that truth is there is no deity watching over us.

 

Evolutionists claim that at the beginning (Big Bang) the laws did not apply and all matter and energy simply came into being out of absolutely nothing, for no reason (?).

 

Some clarification is in order:

 

• Evolutionists believe in evolution, i.e. the process by which species undergo changes both major and minor over the course of many, many generations in response to environmental pressures.
   
  
• Abiogenesis - the process by which life arose from inorganic matter - is a separate issue altogether from evolution.
   
  
• The origin of the universe is a matter separate from both evolution and abiogenesis. The Big Bang theory is a theory in the strict scientific definition of the word, meaning that it explains existing observations, and has generated testable predictions that have meshed well with later observations. It's not possible to say with any degree of certainty what happened before a certain point in time at which the laws we're familiar with break down. But given that the universe is currently observed to be expanding, the BBT posits that the very early universe was extremely small, hot, and dense, and that all matter, energy and space were crammed into that tiny volume.

The Big Bang has many many problems for which ideas such as inflation, dark matter, dark energy have simply been invented to hold the idea together.

 

Dark matter and dark energy have been hypothesized to account for a number of observations that deviated from what earlier theories predicted. but dark matter and dark energy don't alter the fact that the universe is expanding, or that it was smaller in the past.

 

 

[pbharvey]

Humans have been struggling with trying to answer the ‘where from’ question since we first attained consciousness and self-awareness. We always will struggle, there is much, MUCH we don’t know. BUT that struggle to learn, learn, and learn some more is part of what makes us (somewhat) unique on the planet. Those who profess to know the answer to the ‘where from how; question, i.e. “God did it”, actually work against the quest for answers, actually slow mankind’s progress to understanding. And that’s the biggest sin of all of religion.

 

I don't struggle with understanding God; I accept it through faith. To some of you, that's an intellectual surrender and its too big a pill to swallow. I understand that, its no fun admitting you can' figure something out. I figured out I can't figure it out. His ways are higher than mine and that's OK with me. I'm not as smart as God. Do I wonder why bad things happen to good people? Yes, of course. Does it bother me that children are starving? Yes, of course. Do I hold Papa Smurf responsible for withholding the magic dust that would heal everyone's misfortune? No I don't. I don't blame God nor do I expect Him to fix things as I see fit. I accept the Bible at face value and I accept God for who the Bible says He is.

 

Many, many mysteries...many things don't make sense. That's OK with me though because my spiritual faith fills in those gaps where my intellectual understanding is incomplete.

 

Take a second look at that sleeping child and appreciate God for what you do know about Him rather than what you don't know about Him.

 

 

[Boffin]

Not replying to anyone in particular:

 

 

I wonder why is a Christian a Christian? Why a Hindu a Hindu, a Muslim a Muslim and so forth?

 

I strongly suspect that for 99% of them it is because there parents were adherents of those faiths.

 

Most religions have catch-all texts along the lines of 'beware false prophets' to forestall critical thought about the other faiths on offer. Some punish apostates by death. Both sure signs of weak argument.

 

We humans need to understand things and when we don't we create gods to fill in the lack of knowledge.

 

I know that when I die I will simply cease to exist. I use that knowledge to drive my desire to live life to the full rather than preparing for an afterlife. I want jam today, not jam tomorrow.

 

I do not fear death and I do not fear god. I fear those who forego living in the name of the god they have invented for themselves.

 

Andy

[KDeline]

The truth is there is a creator it is impossible you came from nothing. Matter must come from somewhere it cannot just come from nothing.

 

 

 

Not so fast there. Where did your creater come from?

[beemerman2k]

OK, so, is that it? This is all we got behind all this faith we proclaim to the world?

 

From what I understand, early Christians gave themselves and their families over to being eaten by lions in the Roman Coliseum rather than denounce their faith. Was that simply a matter of Pascal's wager? Was it simply because "matter comes from something and cannot come from nothing" -- as though the only intellectual alternatives are the Big Bang Theory an American version of New Testament Protestant Christianity as practiced by the mainstream denomination?

 

So why, then, is Christianity presented as "Truth"? Some in this very thread have already referred to it as such. Aside from a dream or two, what actual evidence is there to support the foundations upon which this "truth" is based?

 

Is all the proof that would substantiate the veracity of the actual history and miracles of the Bible being presented in this thread?

 

- Is there actual objective evidence to support a universe created in 7 days (as opposed to that laughable proposition called the Big Bang *theory*, not "truth" or "law" mind you)?

 

- Is there actual evidence to support the Garden of Eden where 2 people succumb to the temptations of a talking snake, which condemns all of creation from that moment on?

 

- Is there actual evidence to support a belief of Noah's Ark and a global flood? A Tower of Babel? Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

- Is there ANY actual evidence to support the story of how about Israel fled Egypt through a miraculously parted Red Sea? Any evidence of Egyptian chariots or of other paraphernalia found on the floor of that body of water that might hint at the veracity of this story? Gotta be something down there, don't you think?

 

- Here's a doozie, complements of my studying "counterpoint" by listening to YouTube videos, any evidence to support that Jesus Christ ever actually existed?

 

If you respond, "sure, it's in the Bible", that doesn't answer the question. Now, the Bible will have to take the witness stand and become subject to cross examination, and how prepared are you to defend the veracity and integrity of that book?

 

C'mon people. We can do better than what I have read so far, can't we?

 

- Here's a final doozie (compliments of my Jewish friend explaining the serious doubts behind the legitimacy of the Jesus story): using the 4 Gospels, put together a consistent, non-contradictory timeline of events that take place on the most critically important morning in the history of Christianity - the morning Jesus rose from the dead.

 

Is this religion -- or whatever you want to call it -- real or not? Is this "truth" or not?

 

If you claim God spoke to you, awake or in a dream, what did he say? Anything about how we can cure cancer or aids? No? What about diabetes? Any mention of how we might be able to end poverty and other human suffering? Did he say anything about how we can stop wars from taking place? Balance the budget? Pay off the deficit? He (God is a "he", right?) say anything about women's issues or the rights of gay Americans? Any mention of how we might be able to treat all people equally, love all people equally, do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and at the same time not tolerate lifestyles that are contrary to what is recorded in his Bible? What, exactly, did He say?

 

It's one thing to simply answer the tough questions that face us with, "I have no idea". But it's a whole different ball game to answer them with "I have the Truth". That's a whole different ball game, which merits substantiation, don't you think? So substantiate it!

 

I await an overwhelmingly powerful response to this post so we can all know that this religion really is "Truth", and go on from here in full support of the many movements underway to limit the rights and freedom of others whose lives are not in alignment with this religion. If this really is true, then lets face it, we cannot afford to suffer another Sodom and Gomorrah! 9/11 was tough enough, yet that's nothing when compared to what happened to those 2 cities a long time ago!

 

Point, and counterpoint. Study them! Know them! Resolve them! Or forever hold your peace.

[pbharvey]

 

Aside from a dream or two, what actual evidence is there to support the foundations upon which this "truth" is based?

 

 

 

 

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

 

The cornerstone of belief is faith. Faith is the evidence of the unseen. No doubt a circular argument to some, but I didn't write the book.

 

How can something unseen be the evidence of something seen?

Your profound love of your wife and family is unseen yet real.

Faith, love, hope, compassion...all unseen forces that exist as evidence.

 

As disappointing and frustrating as it may be, we wont find all the answers in the laboratory. That exhilarating feeling you get while riding your motorcycle on a fantastic spring morning? Prove that to me with the periodic chart of the elements and differential equations.

[Ken H.]

OK, so, is that it? This is all we got behind all this faith we proclaim to the world?

C'mon people. We can do better than what I have read so far, can't we?

Point, and counterpoint. Study them! Know them! Resolve them! Or forever hold your peace.

You raise many critical thinking/examination points James, but alas, I for one am willing to let this thread lay where it is.

 

Those that believe all you have to do is believe; aren’t going to be persuaded otherwise by critical thinking points. Their answer to all your questions (and many more) will always be, 'Because ___________ (insert name of thier god here) told me so.'

 

And I guess that’s fine. For them. They of course are free to lead their lives anyway they want, to what ever end they think there is.

 

As long as they let me (the many) do the same. But they won’t. They never do. Thus the battle (figuratively and literally) rages on, with many casualties (figuratively and literally) yet to come.

 

[RTJohn]

Dude...thanks being so clear about the many things I've thought about. I think I feel the same way you do. Religion is the response to fear of the unknown. Why are we here? What's my purpose? What happens when we die? These questions can drive you crazy. The self-help books, the Bible, Koran, etc., do not provide the answers. I continue to think about it a lot. BTW, this forum is great. A lot of really smart dudes here. I learn something everytime I log in.

[pbharvey]

Those that believe all you have to do is believe; aren’t going to be persuaded otherwise by critical thinking points. Their answer to all your questions (and many more) will always be, 'Because ___________ (insert name of thier god here) told me so.'

 

 

Faith and critical thinking are not mutually exclusive.

[Rocer]

from beemerman2k: "... But it's a whole different ball game to answer them with "I have the Truth". That's a whole different ball game, which merits substantiation, don't you think? So substantiate it!..."

 

Perhaps Mr. Tebow would have an answer for you, at least in his personal ball game ( couldn't resist ) experience with his God. And maybe that's all that matters - certainly it is for him. Frankly, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about Tebow as for years we've watched baseball players step up to bat and bless themselves, sometimes several times. Going further back in the American experience the mere wearing of a cross was considered (by the Puritans) blasphemy. Where were computers with discussion boards then? .

 

Getting back to the original question, the fact that we're critical of Tebow's wearing his "faith" on his sleeve - is that just an example of our society's growing intolerance of others? The story about the two families in the restaurant certainly, for me, reflects this (shared) intolerance. The criticism of Whitney Houston's lifestyle ditto. "The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones;" (Wm. Shakespeare)

 

On a broader scale and in reference to your question re: "... limit the rights and freedom of others whose lives are not in alignment with this religion." I thought that's why some nations have separation of church and state as a means to check this (sorry, had to throw in a hockey term - there's just been too much football) ) .

[moshe_levy]

Faith and critical thinking are not mutually exclusive.

 

Faith and critical thinking are not mutually exclusive only if known fact displaces myth in every single case a person thinks. We covered this before, as we have touched on the exhaustive list of where relgious institutions subverted known facts, and in fact murdered the brilliant discoverers of those facts, to keep faith's stanglehold on the flock's thought. The church does not present a kind history to critical thinkers, scientists, and people who question dogmatic, rigid thinking.

 

By definition, the more someone knows as objective fact, the less faith can explain anything to the critical thinker. Mass murder in the name of God - mass torture in the name of God - mass looting in the name of God - would be unthinkable to the critical thinker. Yet history shows the effects of elevating faith over facts as a virtue (in and of itself) by religious institutions, time and again. The effects of which are quite obvious, self explanatory, and certainly not conducive to much critical thinking on the layman's level. The motto seems to be "I know it's so, because the Bible tells me." Not "question everything." People who question are, in fact, "scared of the truth" as we just learned in this thread. Indeed - Copernicus, Galilei, Bruno, "scared" of the truth and facts. Thue church meanwhile has a monopoly on them.... Indeed! So, again - theory vs. reality.

 

We can dissect it further still - faith in what? Faith in God? Mine? Yours? Or faith in man-made parables, stories, inventions, icons, and statues? Mine? Yours? Faith in idealistic religious teachings, or in the obviously flawed institutions that promote them? Faith despite these flaws? Or a little of this, and a little of that? So, so complicated! Faith means many things to many people. You must understand, in an election year, it conjures up a pretty polarizing picture depending on who you ask about it.

 

-MKL

[Mike]

In all of this, it repeatedly occurs to me that there is a certain impudence in man, believing that it is within the ability of any of us to full understand the truths of existence, either through science or religion.

[moshe_levy]

Mike, what would we amount to if we did not at least try? Is it not an intellectually and spiritually rigorous exercise worthy of our efforts?

 

-MKL

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

In all of this, it repeatedly occurs to me that there is a certain impudence in man, believing that it is within the ability of any of us to full understand the truths of existence, either through science or religion.

 

I don't think science claims to offer full understanding of the truths of existence; all it can promise is a rational explanation of what can be observed, with those explanations being supported by further observations. Science may permit some degree of informed speculation on matters unobserved (based on matters observed), but the confidence in such speculation is rightly limited.

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

any evidence to support that Jesus Christ ever actually existed?

 

As far as I can tell, there is about the same amount of evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for the existence of Socrates. After the passage of so much time, and so many people sifting through whatever evidence there might be, no serious authority has proposed that either man didn't actually exist. Therefore, I would suggest that the burden of proof at this point should shift to those trying to prove otherwise.

 

As far as what evidence might be required to substantiate any particular religion as being the "true" religion, evidence such as might be required in a court of law would be appropriate if that religion were to be held up as being the law of the land, where unbelievers would suffer physical consequences if they express their unbelief. In their wisdom, our founding fathers elected to separate church and state so that wouldn't happen here, and I hope we continue to follow that precept in the future. What they couldn't do is to ensure that all citizens would be treated equally by all other citizens regardless of their religious beliefs. I'm sure that adhering to certain belief systems, including religious beliefs, will continue to be an unspoken factor in making certain hiring decisions, joining certain clubs, and even living at peace with your neighbors in certain communities. While that kind of prejudice is regretable, the bright-line requirement is that religious beliefs should not and will not be given any standing in a court of law. The rest are just some of the obstacles we all have to overcome in life, some of us more than others.

 

The same is true with the laws of physics. If I'm going to be bound by those laws, whether I like it or not, then a particular physical law should require a particular rigor of proof that we can all agree on, such as the scientific method.

 

On the other hand, if I tell you that I met Joe Blow and talked with him while I was walking down the street yesterday, it would strike most of us as unnecessarily rigorous if you required the same level of evidence that would be required to prove a legal case or a physical law. We would tell you whatever we wanted to tell you about the meeting with Joe, and you could believe whatever you wanted to believe about it.

 

Which is about what it comes down to with respect to God. Whatever proof you may require will necessarily have to come from within you. There have been many ways posited to find God; I don't know if any of them will work for you. If you care enough to try any of them, maybe one of them will. The one that worked for me was to simply to pray, and then to observe how that prayer altered my life, sometimes, though rarely, very directly and dramatically, other times very subtly, but something was always there to find, if I took the time to look for it.

 

Like dark matter, God does whatever God does. If God doesn't cure cancer, that means he doesn't cure cancer; probably dark matter doesn't deliver pizza, either.

[beemerman2k]

There are no unearthed or preserved documents acknowledging the existence of a man named Jesus (well, that Jesus anyhow) within 100 years of his death, aside from the texts in the Bible. Check out presentations by Dr Richard Carrier on YouTube for the details.

 

No discovered letters that discuss maimed people who were miraculously healed or raised from the dead or of any earthquake around the time of Jesus death or of a darkness falling in the land or of dead people walking around Jerusalem as has been alleged in the Gospels as happening when Jesus was crucified--nothing!

 

Even if you read the biblical book of Acts, there is no record of Roman or Jewish soldiers searching for or acknowledging a missing body of a resurrected savior. A rather odd omission, don't you think? No record of any Apostles being questioned about the whereabouts of Jesus dead body--nothing! It's almost as if it never happened.

[pbharvey]

 

Faith and critical thinking are not mutually exclusive only if known fact displaces myth in every single case a person thinks. We covered this before, as we have touched on the exhaustive list of where religious institutions subverted known facts, and in fact murdered the brilliant discoverers of those facts, to keep faith's stranglehold on the flock's thought. The church does not present a kind history to critical thinkers, scientists, and people who question dogmatic, rigid thinking.

 

Because something is unknown does not mean it is a myth. When critical thinking reaches a crossroad that requires "fact" to move forward, what happens? One makes assumptions and wanders down both paths to see where they lead. Yesterday's "known fact" is tomorrow's myth, and vice versa.

 

Please don't confuse faith with religion or the church at large. They are close cousins but they aren't the same. Faith is the innocent bystander; religion is schizophrentic.

 

 

 

 

By definition, the more someone knows as objective fact, the less faith can explain anything to the critical thinker. Mass murder in the name of God - mass torture in the name of God - mass looting in the name of God - would be unthinkable to the critical thinker. Yet history shows the effects of elevating faith over facts as a virtue (in and of itself) by religious institutions, time and again. The effects of which are quite obvious, self explanatory, and certainly not conducive to much critical thinking on the layman's level. The motto seems to be "I know it's so, because the Bible tells me." Not "question everything." People who question are, in fact, "scared of the truth" as we just learned in this thread. Indeed - Copernicus, Galilei, Bruno, "scared" of the truth and facts. The church meanwhile has a monopoly on them.... Indeed! So, again - theory vs. reality.

 

To people of faith, its OK to reach a point of discovery and find out there is no suitable answer. And yes, to those issues I rely on something bigger than myself and my own understanding and determine that its OK to not have all the answers and rely on faith. To some that's a cop out; I get that. To the faithful, its mere recognition of a higher power. You may view this as a weakness while I view it as a strength.

 

 

 

We can dissect it further still - faith in what? Faith in God? Mine? Yours? Or faith in man-made parables, stories, inventions, icons, and statues? Mine? Yours? Faith in idealistic religious teachings, or in the obviously flawed institutions that promote them? Faith despite these flaws? Or a little of this, and a little of that? So, so complicated! Faith means many things to many people.

 

A mystery, I agree. Its worth looking into though.

 

 

 

You must understand, in an election year, it conjures up a pretty polarizing picture depending on who you ask about it.

 

-MKL

 

...if we can elect a man named Hussein, we can elect an man named Moshe

 

 

[Mike]

Mike, what would we amount to if we did not at least try? Is it not an intellectually and spiritually rigorous exercise worthy of our efforts?

 

-MKL

 

Certainly . . . and it's an innate quality of our species. But, there's an arrogance in it that fails to comprehend how puny our intellect is, as compared to the vastness of the Universe and all that comprises it, perceptible and imperceptible.

 

At least that's the way I see it . . . the scientist, the preacher, and the atheist all seem to believe that theirs is the only vision of the truth, none of them recognizing that they only have the most tenuous grasp on the tiniest sliver of reality.

 

It sometimes seems to me that there's an inverse relationship between certitude and understanding. In fact, I'm sure of it!

[beemerman2k]

I don't think there is an issue with your approach to "faith", just don't turn around and expect anyone outside of your world to consider it to be "truth"! If you allege it as truth, then prepare to present evidence a whole lot more powerful than anything you have said so far in this thread.

 

Secondly, why do you feel it is worth looking into? Because you feel that the whole world should engage in the power of magical thinking? Got anything more substantial than that to grab hold of?

 

For the record, I am somewhat playing a "devils advocate" here, but for all this talk about "truth", I want to see if people can substantiate their bold claims.

 

Again, if you claim to have questions, great! Let's share them and see what we can collectively discover. But if you claim to have answers, well, then they better actually answer the questions with information that does more than simply generate a million more questions!

[Mike]

In all of this, it repeatedly occurs to me that there is a certain impudence in man, believing that it is within the ability of any of us to full understand the truths of existence, either through science or religion.

 

I don't think science claims to offer full understanding of the truths of existence; all it can promise is a rational explanation of what can be observed, with those explanations being supported by further observations. Science may permit some degree of informed speculation on matters unobserved (based on matters observed), but the confidence in such speculation is rightly limited.

 

 

A great summary and one, if adhered to, that illustrates the role and value of science. However, as we have seen throughout history, sometimes the dogmatic principles underlying religion overtake and corrupt science.

 

I also tend to believe--and this is because I watched too much TV as a child--that there are forces at play in the Universe of which we have only the tiniest bit of understanding. As compared to the span of mankind's existence and efforts to become more scientific, our understanding of fundamental forces are, relatively speaking, in their infancy (as an example, the significant experiments in radio waves and other forms of radiation that form much of the basis of current science occurred just a few decades ago). Einstein's theories of relativity are accepted as gospel . . . but then an observational error at CERN causes us to doubt this most basic of tenets.

 

Certainly science has served us well in the practical sense, particularly given the leaps of the past century. But, as we edge closer to claiming an understanding of the more fundamental--and it seems, more difficult to discern--issues of creation, existence, and life, it seems that science sometimes yields to dogma, and that dogma stifles true scientific exploration.

[pbharvey]

I don't think there is an issue with your approach to "faith", just don't turn around and expect anyone outside of your world to consider it to be "truth"! If you allege it as truth, then prepare to present evidence a whole lot more powerful than anything you have said so far in this thread.

 

I'm not here to try and make everyone trade in their pocket protector for a pocket New Testament. I have no evidence. Faith is its own evidence. I know that's not popular. To some its preposterous and weak-minded. That's fine, I'll take the blow for that.

 

 

Secondly, why do you feel it is worth looking into? Because you feel that the whole world should engage in the power of magical thinking? Got anything more substantial than that to grab hold of?

 

Simple. I think every man owes it to himself to try and figure "it" out. To say I hate religion because the church is full of hypocrites is the same cop out as a person of faith not thinking critically.

 

Love is blind, but (my) faith isn't. My faith is informed and confirmed.

 

 

For the record, I am somewhat playing a "devils advocate" here, but for all this talk about "truth", I want to see if people can substantiate their bold claims.

 

Again, if you claim to have questions, great! Let's share them and see what we can collectively discover. But if you claim to have answers, well, then they better actually answer the questions with information that does more than simply generate a million more questions!

 

I certainly don't think I have all the answers. I have an unwavering faith in the God of the Bible. The Bible presents more questions than answers but none that bother me so much that they weaken my faith. The hard questions strengthen my faith....but that's just me.

[Couchrocket]

Mike, what would we amount to if we did not at least try? Is it not an intellectually and spiritually rigorous exercise worthy of our efforts?

 

-MKL

 

Yes, it certainly is. Unless of course, an a priori assumption is that we're here merely by time plus chance, plus nothing else. If that is the case, the exercise, regardless of how rigorous, is meaningless in the deepest sense of the term.

 

A serious problem with most naturalists is that they seem to insist on starting from something rather than from nothing in their arguments. If the position posits a true "something from nothing" worldview, we must be honest and embrace "nothing" as the starting place in philosophical/meaning discussions as well. The practical problem is that you cannot do that. The reality of "personality" is a serious problem. Cogito ergo sum is more profound than even René Descartes could appreciate. Implicit in his proposal is that "I am" has meaning. In a purely time plus chance, plus nothing view this is precluded by definition - unless one gets "slippery" with definitions - which I find intellectually dishonest. A good portion of the time, among amateurs, this is not intentional - but due to a lack of "rigorous enough" critical thinking. Naturalists often speak as though they are not speaking from presuppositions about the nature of reality, that they are beginning at a proper beginning for their logic-chains. It is rarely the case.

 

When Anthony Flew finally came to realize this - things changed for him.

 

[moshe_levy]

It sometimes seems to me that there's an inverse relationship between certitude and understanding. In fact, I'm sure of it!

 

Yes, that's EXACTLY what I've been saying, specifically with the "Religulous" post above. That's Maher's point - it's an A+ level excellent one.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

Yes, it certainly is. Unless of course, an apriori assumption is that we're here merely by time plus chance, plus nothing else. If that is the case, the exercise, regardless of how rigorous, is meaningless in the deepest sense of the term.

 

I have to disagree. Engaging in these thoughts and specifically debating them with others of a different mindset to me, is never meaningless. If nothing else, I will learn something and either have to think deeper or challenge myself harder, or have that effect on someone else as an added bonus. It may be meaningless in the sense that it accomplishes nothing that actually changes anything - like any political debate we may have as well - but one is always well served by practice and engagement of the senses.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

Mike, what would we amount to if we did not at least try? Is it not an intellectually and spiritually rigorous exercise worthy of our efforts?

 

-MKL

 

Yes, it certainly is. Unless of course, an apriori assumption is that we're here merely by time plus chance, plus nothing else. If that is the case, the exercise, regardless of how rigorous, is meaningless in the deepest sense of the term.

 

The implied, if not stated question that has come to dominate this discussion is, "what is the actual evidence you have to make your world view worthy of consideration by others?"

 

I don't think anyone has argued here for how we came to be other than to acknowledge that we simply do not know. Do you have evidence that we should consider that might suggest that there is something along these lines that we can know?

[Couchrocket]

Yes, it certainly is. Unless of course, an apriori assumption is that we're here merely by time plus chance, plus nothing else. If that is the case, the exercise, regardless of how rigorous, is meaningless in the deepest sense of the term.

 

I have to disagree. Engaging in these thoughts and specifically debating them with others of a different mindset to me, is never meaningless. If nothing else, I will learn something and either have to think deeper or challenge myself harder, or have that effect on someone else as an added bonus. It may be meaningless in the sense that it accomplishes nothing that actually changes anything - like any political debate we may have as well - but one is always well served by practice and engagement of the senses.

 

-MKL

 

You miss my point entirely.

[moshe_levy]

Not the first time it's happened, sorry about that. After rereading your post, I agree with your basic sentiment.

 

-MKL

[Ken H.]

We can dissect it further still - faith in what? Faith in God? Mine? Yours? Or faith in man-made parables, stories, inventions, icons, and statues? Mine? Yours? Faith in idealistic religious teachings, or in the obviously flawed institutions that promote them? Faith despite these flaws? Or a little of this, and a little of that?

Or the one that I like the best (insert sarcasm emoticon here) – faith that my belief is right and everyone who disagrees with it is wrong.

[Couchrocket]

Mike, what would we amount to if we did not at least try? Is it not an intellectually and spiritually rigorous exercise worthy of our efforts?

 

-MKL

 

Yes, it certainly is. Unless of course, an apriori assumption is that we're here merely by time plus chance, plus nothing else. If that is the case, the exercise, regardless of how rigorous, is meaningless in the deepest sense of the term.

 

The implied, if not stated question that has come to dominate this discussion is, "what is the actual evidence you have to make your world view worthy of consideration by others?"

 

I don't think anyone has argued here for how we came to be other than to acknowledge that we simply do not know. Do you have evidence that we should consider that might suggest that there is something along these lines that we can know?

 

Yes, the fact that we're here and talking about it. The fact that "there is something" and that something has personality, is pretty profound evidence that is overlooked much in the same way that fish don't think much about water.

[beemerman2k]

Yes, the fact that we're here and talking about it. The fact that "there is something" and that something has personality, is pretty profound evidence that is overlooked much in the same way that fish don't think much about water.

 

OK, great thought. I am eager to follow this line of thought further.

[Ken H.]

But, there's an arrogance in it that fails to comprehend how puny our intellect is, as compared to the vastness of the Universe and all that comprises it, perceptible and imperceptible.

 

At least that's the way I see it . . . the scientist, the preacher, and the atheist all seem to believe that theirs is the only vision of the truth, none of them recognizing that they only have the most tenuous grasp on the tiniest sliver of reality.

 

It sometimes seems to me that there's an inverse relationship between certitude and understanding. In fact, I'm sure of it!

I agree completely with that. But see, on those same grounds I think it’s just as preposterous, and arrogant, for a human, any human to stand up as say, “I’ve got the answer – God did it.”

 

When actually we, all of humanity, haven’t got a clue. Give us a couple more million years to work on it and we’ll in all likelihood be closer to understanding.

 

Your inverse relationship between certainty and understanding is just as applicable for the God did it crowd too.

 

 

[Ken H.]

To people of faith, its OK to reach a point of discovery and find out there is no suitable answer. And yes, to those issues I rely on something bigger than myself and my own understanding and determine that its OK to not have all the answers and rely on faith. To some that's a cop out; I get that. To the faithful, its mere recognition of a higher power. You may view this as a weakness while I view it as a strength.

So let me, if I may, rephrase this ever so slightly from the other point of view. And is it any less valid?

 

To people of no faith (as traditionally defined, as in faith in a singular all knowing all creating God), its OK to reach a point of discovery and find out there is no suitable answer. And yes, to those issues I rely on myself and acknowledge my own lack of understanding and determine that it’s OK to not have all the answers. To some that's a cop out; I get that. To the no faithful, its mere recognition of what we do not know. You may view this as a weakness while I view it as a strength.

 

 

[Selden]

...if we can elect a man named Hussein, we can elect an man named Moshe

I'm not so sure. It partly depends on whether Moshe is perceived as Jewish, agnostic, or an atheist (although I suspect that many people feel there is no difference between the last two). Despite recent anti-Muslim hysteria (and PLEASE don't take this as some sort of coded political reference, because it's NOT), I suspect that even a Muslim would have a better chance than an atheist for being elected.

 

Gallup Polls & Other Surveys on American Attitudes Towards Atheists

 

The results weren't much different in 2006, and are not likely to be today.

[philbytx]

Ahh! OK, so how about an Agnostic then ???