God/Religion. Why?

[OnOneRyder]

That was quite the long winded rant about an argument you've proposed before which I have also addressed before. Your truck has always been there in the past and nothing is out of the ordinary to suggest anything has changed. Yes there are alternate potentials, but your inclusion of faith in your description of your beliefs is completely unnecessary. Faith is not required for the example you've given as you can utilize past experiences as evidence to support your conclusion, patterns can and are used as evidence in scientific theories. Faith is used when proof is absent.

I also get it, you think you're thinking rationally in regards to your beliefs. That's fine, you're entitled to think that but as soon as you choose to share your beliefs in a discussion forum expect to have them questioned. Quit getting your panties in a knot that I question such bold claims as miracles without so much as an example. Claims of "knowledge" when such knowledge cannot be reasonably known should be questioned, especially when the person making the claim poorly articulates their thoughts. Not to be too condescending, but I do question the ability of someone to think rationally when they have a difficult time conveying relatively simplistic thoughts or when the posts they present are lacking in intellectual quality. Call me arrogant all you like, I don't claim intellectual superiority over people for their beliefs in god. I listen to what they have to say and reserve my verdict until after and if they show me the religious bias they have in their logic, or their total lack of modern science through ignorance or arrogance.

So get the **** over it. As much as Atheists bitch and moan about having religion "shoved down their throats", here they are, insulting the religions of others. Obviously, you won't believe the same things as I do, because you haven't seen the same things.

Questioning someone's beliefs is not not synonymous with insulting their beliefs, if that is your take on what the non-theists do in this thread then that's unfortunate. Why should we feel the need to dull the words we use to question beliefs in a book which we believe to be an insult to us?

You're right I won't, I asked the previous poster to cite examples and you go off on a childish tirade? The discussion doesn't end when you think it ends, if you wish to not be a part of it feel free to hit the back button and find another thread.

[Taco-Calamitous]

Yeah, gotta remember sassy, the first post of this thread set this thing up as a debate. Said specifically that it was intended as such, and that if you felt that someone didn't explain their beliefs to your liking, not to back down about telling them so. It also said "no name calling," but the thread's already failed there

I agree with you though, that there's nothing anyone on a message board can say that's going to shake someone's belief systems so much that they're going to change their minds about everything. To assume that you as some block of text on the internet can do as much is fairly arrogant. However, this thread was meant for debate. It's not going to accomplish anything but cause bad feelings between people and reaffirm those who think they're smarter than everyone else, but eh. That's why I usually don't post in these things. Personally, though...

I believe in the Christian God, and Jesus Christ. I was born into a Catholic family, and events throughout my life have only reaffirmed my faith. I have a wonderful group of friends who have stuck together since Middle School, and they are all Christians now, but they didn't used to be. One was very much an atheist at one point, and wanted God to come face to face with him and tell him He was real. Another was a pagan, and another a Wiccan. Through the course of High School though, these diverse viewpoints and belief systems all came to Christianity.

We've also seen loved ones survive sickness when they were supposed to die. One guy's father was supposed to not survive the night, and my friends all went to the hospital to pray for him. He survived. More recently, his grandpa was supposed to have surgery on the heart that no one has survived before. We prayed for him, and he lived. The Lord has come through for us in other ways, too. Unexpected funds when we were running low on money, difficult tasks made substantially easier, comfort in dark times...

Furthermore, I love the figure of Jesus and the example that he set. Whenever I read the Gospel, I'm filled with a warm feeling inside. Living by his example is something to strive for, although I can't say I'm doing the best job ever at that, always. Also, Jesus was a historical figure. There are documents about him from that time period. Some people claim that they aren't legitimate. I don't know that I should take their word for it.

Beyond all that, I have taken college level courses in biology, I've done some study of physics, I have a general knowledge of such things, and my recent ASVAB scores would suggest I've got a fairly decent grasp. I have a friend who is much more knowledgeable on the subject than I am, as well; one of his hobbies is reading biology, chemistry, quantum physics books, etc., on his own time, heh. He could probably explain much better than me... but nothing we've ever come across that science has put forth to be the answer to the origin of the universe or life has ever been convincing to us. That lightning striking the water theory? That space dust being in perfect order to become a life form somehow, just by accident? I am not convinced. And I am aware that the more some scientists have studied the beginning of the universe, the more they are led to believe that all of this couldn't have started on its own. I've even heard that Stephen Hawking thought this at one point.

I won't say that I am super educated on the subject of all origin theories or science in general, but I know enough to know that they haven't found a satisfactory answer yet. All they're doing is taking "Not Creator" and putting it in the place of "Creator," with no great amount of proof that their "Not Creator" is even a viable answer. If they were honest, they would simply say that they don't know how everything was created yet. But there can't be a God/creator, right? Let's just squash that notion right now.

I am well aware that there are likely holes in my argument, that anyone who's already posted in this thread (or hasn't) will likely not be swayed by anything I said. These are simply the reasons why I believe what I believe. As human beings, we tend to take whatever information reaffirms our beliefs (or "mindsets") and ignore that which detracts from it. You're going to believe what you want to believe, regardless of what anyone says. Any change in your beliefs ("mindset") is going to come from change within you, and not from what anyone else tells you. So... my final conclusion is that this debate is pointless. I could go look for links to back up what I've said, but I don't feel like it, and my sources would probably be refuted by somebody anyway. Go ahead and respond to me. I probably won't say anything else. Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

[Unknown Entity]

I've never understood why debates such as this can be taken so personally. We live in a very diverse world, so there's bound to be a difference of opinion on many matters. I also think these matters are allowed to be questioned, for others to gather insight on what we all believe. And you know what? I believe certain opinions can change someone else's outlook on religion if done correctly. All I've seen in this thread is people undermining each other over their opinion. I honestly think it'll do everyone good to listen once in a while, and gain some knowledge.

In all fairness Sas, I don't think you can compare a faith in God to that of having faith that your truck is in your garage. If you're telling me you've touched and rode God, I think you have a lot of explaining to do and may need a padded room (/trying to be funny but doubts it'll work much). You've seen your garage, you've seen your truck, you've driven it, you've probably had a good whiff of gas fumes from it, and you'd probably hear someone attempting to steal your truck (assuming your garage is close). Do you have faith that God is somewhere? Where is "somewhere"? Have you touched, tasted or seen God?

If anything, if I believed in God, it'd be more of a feeling of someone powerful watching over me. I wouldn't be able to pin-point a place from which they look, but I'd feel them. Like walking out my house on a hot summer afternoon. I'm not telling you how you should feel - I just find your definition of faith weird.

So didn't mean for my post to come off as homo in some ways. Also, I'll make it damn clear: I'm not attacking anyone with this post. We clear? 'Cos if we're not, I might skip a few posts in case they contain some snarky comments to do with my intellect.


I've heard some beliefs around God being the force of creation instead of a man. I've never quite decided if it's a last minute argument that God can be proved or if it's a reasonable explanation into the existence of God. I think religion has been built up around our need to discover who we are and where we came from, so it could be both. I don't think God can be proven scientifically, but I think it'll definitely be tried by most people, and I do think something discovered by science will undoubtedly be named "God" by believers.

Humanoids have walked this Earth for over 3million years with us Homo Sapiens walking the Earth for over 100,000 years. The oldest known human-made religious structure is Göbekli Tepe, Turkey, which is believed to have been built around 12,000 years ago, so you have to believe that religion has been around for a long time. But what was the purpose of Göbekli Tepe? It's believed it was a place of worship for hunters who gathered food. It's likely, going by the carvings and scattered animal bones, that these people worshipped animals and not specifically a God.

I think as we developed into humanity, so did religion. Different religions have popped up ever since, with the oldest recorded religion being Hinduism (5500–2600 BCE), and the concept of God [in Hinduism] has always been complex, and really depends on the person and what they believe in. Christianity is waaay younger with the earliest reports from the first third of the first century. That doesn't make it any less of a religion at all, but I believe that religion has just evolved with us. The Bible was written over a period of 1,400 to 1,800 years by more than forty different authors with as little as the inspiration of the belief in God. That's a lot of time to evolve beliefs.

Why did it take us so long to develop a belief in a God? Surely we'd have known about him far sooner than that?

I'm done for the time being. I just want it to be known that these are my beliefs plus some looking up I've done this morning. I'm happy for (and expect) people to comment on it, but I do ask for respect. None of this undermining shit. A belief or disbelief in God makes you no more intelligent or worthy of an opinion.

[Heartless Angel]

You don't believe in the same religion as somebody else might. We get it. That's your right. You believe whatever you want. Good for you.

But again -- just because you don't follow the same religious belief as somebody else does not mean that they are somehow stupid. So drop the arrogant attempt at a mental superiority complex, it's really annoying. (And slightly amusingly ironic, considering most of the ones trying to employ it.)

I also value and accept each and every person's right to believe whatever they like, however not all beliefs have the support of a valid argument, which is generally what a debate is based on. Though you said that post was directed at no one, I'll assume at least a part of it was in response to me, if not my apologies, but I feel the need to clarify this anyways.

When I disagree with a person and poke holes in an argument, it is because I see flaws within the logic that makes the argument as a whole weak, and unable to carry the weight of its conclusion. This isn't to attack the belief itself, merely to make each and every person question their reasons for believing something. If one's only reason for having a belief were the evidence they had for it, and I was able to prove that that evidence was unable to support the conclusion, someone might reexamine the evidence and find another solution. When a group of people are working to find the answer to a complicated question, being proven wrong is not a bad thing. It allows us to stop working under an inaccurate assumption, and move on to finding a better one, getting closer and closer to absolute truth. I don't argue to sound superior or feel superior or any such nonsense, my intellect, whether what it actually is or what it is perceived to be by those around me is entirely irrelevant. Being wrong, or having a flawed argument doesn't make a person stupid, nor does being stupid make a person's arguments worth any less. Debates of this sort should be conducted solely for the purpose of evaluating the worth of ideas, that we may better understand them. Challenging an idea, whether that challenge 'defeats' the idea or not, helps us to move ever closer to truth. I don't argue because I think I'm intelligent, on the contrary, I argue to become more intelligent. I argue because I am perfectly aware of my own uncertainty, and wish to test the strength of my ideas and others, to see which ideas are most worthy of belief. When I offer a poor argument and someone comes and kicks its ass with valid arguments, solid evidence, and worthwhile ideas, I learn from them, I don't feel personally threatened, nor is it my intention to make others feel that way when I poke holes in an argument.

My truck is in my garage. My garage is not empty, there is not somebody else's vehicle in my garage, it's my truck. I firmly believe that. My faith in that idea is very strong -- so much so, in fact, that I would be comfortable saying that I know that my truck is in my garage.

Now, do I actually know that for a fact? Well, since I'm not in my garage looking at my truck's VIN, of course I don't -- for all I know, somebody could have stolen my truck, or the garage might have burned down, or aliens might have warped my truck out to their planet and replaced it with a hologram. But I have faith that my truck is in my garage, and for good reasons.

Do you know where I live? Does anybody here know where I live? If you happened to drive past my place, you would see my home, my garage, and even my truck.

That makes sense, right? You'd see my truck. Just making sure you're still with me, here.

But would you know what it was? Would you know that it's my truck, in my garage? Of course not. You just don't have the reasons that I do to believe that.

And that's all it boils down to. You don't have the same reasons we do for believing -- whether it's a religion or whether it's whose truck is in whose garage. And that's it. We may see the same things, but we see them differently, and with different reasons behind them.

In the end, regardless of who sees what and how they interpret it, your truck either is or is not in your garage. It doesn't really matter what anybody thought about it or if they were right or wrong. The truth doesn't care who understands it. When we compare and contrast our ideas, discarding those which the evidence does not support, we come closer to understanding the truth of the matter. To discard the ideas that are not truth, we examine our reasons for believing them, and the evidence in reality. The sum of these two parts is an argument. By comparing arguments in a debate, we seek to determine which idea is more worthy of belief. This doesn't mean we demand the 'losers' to abandon their belief, simply to point out that their arguments have not yet established truth. We all have the right to believe anything, we are born with this right, but the right to know the truth, that must be earned, and this is the process.

As much as Atheists bitch and moan about having religion "shoved down their throats", here they are, insulting the religions of others. Obviously, you won't believe the same things as I do, because you haven't seen the same things.

Now, you might claim that people who have seen the same things are not credible or trustworthy, but here's the thing ... This may surprise you, so make sure you're sitting down. Ready? Alright, here we go.

NOBODY GIVES A SHIT WHAT YOU THINK.

When one enters into a debate by observing conflicting ideas claiming to be truth, they consent to hearing and considering the ideas of another based upon their arguments, it's not being shoved down one's throat, it's being offered along with a reason why it should be accepted. This is normal, and perfectly acceptable. On occasion however, someone sets the stage for such a debate, but then ignores the rules, trying to claim knowledge of truth without having earned the right to that claim. When one claims their idea is truth, and that all others must accept it without being able to justify that claim, that is shoving ones idea down someone else's throat. That comes from both sides, not just the theists'. One usually doesn't see such things in a debate such as this. When one does, as can be seen here, it is usually shot down quickly with a barrage of questions.

I'm not sure if that's something new to you, or if you're used to being extremely unimportant, but it should be the latter. Really, do you think that if one ignorant little child on the internet was enough to make people lose their religion, that you would be the first?

It is not my intention to make anybody lose their religion, nor do I believe it's anyone elses. If it is, I am forced to say they are morons. With these arguments, nobody has proven that there is no God or that any religion is wrong, simply that it has not earned the right to declare itself the truth. Opinions are fine as long as we keep in mind, that is all they are. When we try to act as though they are facts, we must be able to support them as such. If we can't, we do not have the right to treat them as facts.

We have our beliefs that have been reinforced by what we've been exposed to. So do you.

We all do. It's impossible to not have some belief, some idea of what we think is the truth. But as long as we acknowledge they are nothing more than beliefs, this isn't a problem. When we bring beliefs to a debate, it isn't to destroy the beliefs of others, simply to determine whether any of them qualify to become more than just a belief. Ideas of religion and the existence of the divine have been struggling to be accepted as truth for ages without success, but the beliefs are still alive and well no matter how many times they failed to earn the right to be called the truth. This will continue until one DOES earn the right to be called truth by proving itself with certainty. If this day ever comes, other ideas will be abandoned, but I don't see this day coming any time soon, so we really don't have much to worry about.

Having a good argument doesn't always mean we walk away with answers. In fact I'm most satisfied when we walk away with new, better questions. That's what we acomplish here by proving the arguments which support each other's beliefs wrong.

I believe in the Christian God, and Jesus Christ. I was born into a Catholic family, and events throughout my life have only reaffirmed my faith. I have a wonderful group of friends who have stuck together since Middle School, and they are all Christians now, but they didn't used to be. One was very much an atheist at one point, and wanted God to come face to face with him and tell him He was real. Another was a pagan, and another a Wiccan. Through the course of High School though, these diverse viewpoints and belief systems all came to Christianity.

People's beliefs do change when they find new more compelling evidence for a position they had not previously held. I myself started out a Christian, raised Lutheran, then when I discovered the evidence science offered me, finding it to be much more compelling than anything the church ever offered me, became atheist. Now, at a later stage in my development as a critical thinker, having been forced to reexamine my beliefs by the debates of those and with those far smarter than myself, have become agnostic.

We've also seen loved ones survive sickness when they were supposed to die. One guy's father was supposed to not survive the night, and my friends all went to the hospital to pray for him. He survived. More recently, his grandpa was supposed to have surgery on the heart that no one has survived before. We prayed for him, and he lived. The Lord has come through for us in other ways, too. Unexpected funds when we were running low on money, difficult tasks made substantially easier, comfort in dark times...

While those are all things worthy of celebration, and would make one inclined to want to thank someone responsible, they don't prove the belief to be truth. If however everyone who prayed recovered, or everyone who prayed got what they needed to get by, there might be something to this line of reasoning, but far too often people who doctors say won't make it through the night, in spite of their prayers, don't make it through the night. Those who pray for recovery from serious injuries all their life, but still never recover. Those who fall on hard times, pray for a miracle, but remain poor, hungry or homeless. Many even die. Witnessing what we perceive as miracles may shape our beliefs, but can't give us knowledge of the truth unless we can also know they were miracles by understanding how they happened, and that there was no possible way it could have been without magic. This is unfortunately nearly impossible to prove, and all attempts at it throughout history have fallen short.

... but nothing we've ever come across that science has put forth to be the answer to the origin of the universe or life has ever been convincing to us. That lightning striking the water theory? That space dust being in perfect order to become a life form somehow, just by accident? I am not convinced. And I am aware that the more some scientists have studied the beginning of the universe, the more they are led to believe that all of this couldn't have started on its own. I've even heard that Stephen Hawking thought this at one point.

It has been convincing to many. The big bang theory and the theory of evolution are widely accepted in spite of not having been proven beyond all doubt. It's not just you that hasn't been convinced that it's absolute truth though. Scientists haven't either. That's why they question their own ideas, call their findings theories instead of laws, keep looking into the matter rather than just saying, "Yeah, we already figured that out, let's move on to the next thing and never ask this question again".

I won't say that I am super educated on the subject of all origin theories or science in general, but I know enough to know that they haven't found a satisfactory answer yet. All they're doing is taking "Not Creator" and putting it in the place of "Creator," with no great amount of proof that their "Not Creator" is even a viable answer. If they were honest, they would simply say that they don't know how everything was created yet. But there can't be a God/creator, right? Let's just squash that notion right now.

Those who claim to know that there is no creator are every bit as arrogant and foolish as those who claim they know there is. Neither position has earned the right to be called truth. Not yet. The honest answer IS I don't know. Nobody knows. We all believe something happened, but we don't know.

I am well aware that there are likely holes in my argument, that anyone who's already posted in this thread (or hasn't) will likely not be swayed by anything I said.

Nothing personal, but as a critical thinker, I would almost go so far as to say it is my duty to not be swayed easily, and to question everything until there are no questions left to ask.

These are simply the reasons why I believe what I believe. As human beings, we tend to take whatever information reaffirms our beliefs (or "mindsets") and ignore that which detracts from it. You're going to believe what you want to believe, regardless of what anyone says. Any change in your beliefs ("mindset") is going to come from change within you, and not from what anyone else tells you.

So... my final conclusion is that this debate is pointless.

That's a fine answer. I respect it, and you for it. You're not so arrogant as to claim that belief as absolute knowledge, acknowledging that things have simply led you to believe that rather than proving it to be the truth. But another thought for you to ponder, is it not entirely possible that what others tell you could cause that change within? I would in fact assume that what led me to reexamine my beliefs and change them was the input of those I considered to be smarter than myself. When someone offers me an answer, I am usually quick to dismiss it if they haven't proven it and demand proof before I give it a second thought, but when someone leaves me with a question, as scientists first did, and philosophers did later, that is when I am able to reshape my ideas. When someone is able to offer an argument which leaves a greater uncertainty in my beliefs, I am given these new questions to contemplate, and my new answers lead to a new, and usually 'better', stronger system of beliefs.

It is because of this that I am forced to disagree with your final conclusion. While arguments like this haven't directly given me any answers, they gave me the questions I needed to ask myself to come closer to the truth I seek. As long as one approaches them with an open mind, no debate is truly pointless.

[Sasquatch]

[EDIT: Awwww look, I got negative rep with the comment of "your vagina is showing". It would be sad anyway, but it's made moreso -- and much more comedic -- by being remarked by a person who recently claimed that he/she has "plenty intelligent to say". Tell you what, it's too bad I won't be around them when some people move out of mommy and daddy's house and realize that the real world doesn't find extreme immaturity in any way appealing. It would be fun to watch.]

Yes there are alternate potentials, but your inclusion of faith in your description of your beliefs is completely unnecessary. Faith is not required for the example you've given as you can utilize past experiences as evidence to support your conclusion, patterns can and are used as evidence in scientific theories. Faith is used when proof is absent.

As I have shown you before, not all faith is blind. Continual assertion despite being proven wrong (unless dictionaries are more theist propaganda and thus untrustworthy to you) is more than willful ignorance, it's complete denial of proven truth.

Unless I am in the process of confirming the VIN of the truck in my garage, I must rely on faith. I have absolutely no proof -- not from fifty yards away, out of line-of-sight. Just because it's not faith in a higher power does not mean that it isn't faith at all. And just because it's based on the evidence we've seen (as I explained before, you may not have seen the same evidence) doesn't mean it's not faith. Nobody is without faith.

I also get it, you think you're thinking rationally in regards to your beliefs.

And the constant arrogant idea that people with faith that isn't yours are automatically irrational isn't helping your argument.

Call me arrogant all you like, I don't claim intellectual superiority over people for their beliefs in god. I listen to what they have to say and reserve my verdict until after and if they show me the religious bias they have in their logic, or their total lack of modern science through ignorance or arrogance.

Right -- you listen to what they have to say, until you deduce that they don't share the same faith, then you berate and insult them. I've noticed.

Questioning someone's beliefs is not not synonymous with insulting their beliefs, if that is your take on what the non-theists do in this thread then that's unfortunate.

You're right -- questioning someone's beliefs is not synonymous with insulting their beliefs. But claiming that someone's beliefs are "bullshit", telling people that they're irrational or foolish or ignorant for having a different faith, intentionally twisting and manipulating both scripture and statistics ... That's not "questioning" anything, that's insulting.

You're right I won't, I asked the previous poster to cite examples and you go off on a childish tirade?

I'm not quite sure how you got the idea that I was replying directly to you -- especially when I didn't quote anybody and specifically said, as the first statement of my post, that it was a general post and not a direct reply to any one person. I'm really not sure how much clearer I could have made that. You were one straw on the camel's back.

Yeah, gotta remember sassy, the first post of this thread set this thing up as a debate. Said specifically that it was intended as such, and that if you felt that someone didn't explain their beliefs to your liking, not to back down about telling them so.

It was set up from the OP as a place to explain what and why we do or don't believe, not as a place to insult others because their faith is different from our own. It started off pretty civil, with many good points by those with all kinds of faiths, but it wasn't long before it devolved into "if you don't share my beliefs, you're illogical/irrational."

I have a wonderful group of friends who have stuck together since Middle School, and they are all Christians now, but they didn't used to be. One was very much an atheist at one point, and wanted God to come face to face with him and tell him He was real. Another was a pagan, and another a Wiccan. Through the course of High School though, these diverse viewpoints and belief systems all came to Christianity.

They were just adjusting their faith to the evidence that they had seen and how they interpreted it, just as people of any other faiths.

I won't say that I am super educated on the subject of all origin theories or science in general, but I know enough to know that they haven't found a satisfactory answer yet. All they're doing is taking "Not Creator" and putting it in the place of "Creator," with no great amount of proof that their "Not Creator" is even a viable answer. If they were honest, they would simply say that they don't know how everything was created yet. But there can't be a God/creator, right? Let's just squash that notion right now.

Exactly. Much of "science" is based on the idea that there must be a scientific explanation for everything because no supernatural being exists, even if it means attributing supernatural powers to natural causes, ignoring established laws of physics and thermodynamics -- but, apparently, it's alright if "science" claims that these established scientific and natural laws were broken through natural events, as long as they weren't broken by supernatural events. It makes no sense.

I also think these matters are allowed to be questioned, for others to gather insight on what we all believe.

Not just allowed, but encouraged, I'd say. And while there are huge differences between insulting and questioning, I welcome and encourage questions to my own faith (as, I believe, we all should). Faith is pointless without something to back it up, whatever that faith may concern.

In all fairness Sas, I don't think you can compare a faith in God to that of having faith that your truck is in your garage.

It wasn't so much a comparison as it was a likening of faith. I just wanted to illustrate the point that faith in itself is a foolish concept to insult, as we all have faith in many things, whether they be religious or not, based on our own experiences.

You've seen your garage, you've seen your truck, you've driven it, you've probably had a good whiff of gas fumes from it, and you'd probably hear someone attempting to steal your truck (assuming your garage is close). Do you have faith that God is somewhere? Where is "somewhere"? Have you touched, tasted or seen God?

While I may not have touched, tasted, or seen God, I have seen what I interpret to be signs and works of Him -- and I haven't touched my truck today, or my brain, or you, but I still have reason enough to believe that all of those things exist.

A belief or disbelief in God makes you no more intelligent or worthy of an opinion.

This part, I just wanted to quote for truth.

And Heartless Angel, while you have been in this thread (and in most) one of the more civil, that last post of yours might be the most respectful and respectable of this thread, especially from a non-theist. So, in whichever way you want to take it ... Kudos.

[Clint]

Sassy, you need better coverage.

And the constant arrogant idea that people with faith that isn't yours are automatically irrational isn't helping your argument.

Despite what anybody else thinks, your irrational and blind faith in religion is not superseded by the irrational blind faith against religion of another. You talk to me about immaturity, but you're the one behaving like a child. You're a hypocrite, Sassypants.

Right -- you listen to what they have to say, until you deduce that they don't share the same faith, then you berate and insult them. I've noticed.

Hey, that's the exact same thing you do!

But claiming that someone's beliefs are "bullshit", telling people that they're irrational or foolish or ignorant for having a different faith, intentionally twisting and manipulating both scripture and statistics ... That's not "questioning" anything, that's insulting.

That's exactly right. It's not questioning at all. What you described is what I described earlier. Blind faith against religion. There is no purpose other then "I don't like this belief because it doesn't match my beliefs, and I want to be right." However, your stereotype in your previous post concerning the beliefs of atheism doesn't help the situation. It escalates the situation and makes anybody who shares atheistic beliefs angry.

Both sides of the spectrum are wrong, whether you're arguing for or against your own beliefs. Faith is called faith for a reason. You don't need to prove that you're right, because if you believe, then you have nothing to prove. You don't need anybody else to believe you, and you don't need to defend your beliefs from jackasses attempting to insult them. Sticks and stones, my friend. Words mean nothing.

Much of "science" is based on the idea that there must be a scientific explanation for everything because no supernatural being exists,

That's wrong. Science isn't a concern for religion. It doesn't try to disprove anything. All it does is to try to figure out answers as to why things happen and why things are the way that they are. Any unexplained scientific phenomenon isn't attributed to supernatural powers, the answer to the question just hasn't been discovered yet.

that last post of yours might be the most respectful and respectable of this thread, especially from a non-theist.

I just wanted to quote this to point out the vocabulary used. The part that intrigued me was "especially from a non-theist," as if somehow anybody's beliefs have anything to do with respectability. You go off on people who don't believe the same as you do because they've insulted your beliefs, but that right there is an insult to them personally, not just to their beliefs.

[OnOneRyder]

As I have shown you before, not all faith is blind. Continual assertion despite being proven wrong (unless dictionaries are more theist propaganda and thus untrustworthy to you) is more than willful ignorance, it's complete denial of proven truth.

Faith in the supposed claim you KNOW there is a deity as described in religious texts is 100% blind.

Unless I am in the process of confirming the VIN of the truck in my garage, I must rely on faith. I have absolutely no proof -- not from fifty yards away, out of line-of-sight. Just because it's not faith in a higher power does not mean that it isn't faith at all. And just because it's based on the evidence we've seen (as I explained before, you may not have seen the same evidence) doesn't mean it's not faith. Nobody is without faith.

You clearly completely misunderstand what constitutes proof, evidence and deductive reasoning. The fact that you think that is a sound argument boggles my mind.

And the constant arrogant idea that people with faith that isn't yours are automatically irrational isn't helping your argument.

I wasn't claiming your belief in your rationality was wrong, I'm sorry if you misconstrued that. You went off on a tangent about how you get what non-theists think and that no further discussion was needed, I spat it back in your face. Pot meet kettle.

Right -- you listen to what they have to say, until you deduce that they don't share the same faith, then you berate and insult them. I've noticed.

No, I poke holes in their beliefs where I think they have weaknesses.

You're right -- questioning someone's beliefs is not synonymous with insulting their beliefs. But claiming that someone's beliefs are "bullshit", telling people that they're irrational or foolish or ignorant for having a different faith, intentionally twisting and manipulating both scripture and statistics ... That's not "questioning" anything, that's insulting.

I don't attack a person solely for having a belief in god, I criticize their justifications for those beliefs. If my crudeness comes off an insult it's usually because I'm directing my thoughts towards an individual claiming to "know" anything about a god.

Where have I twisted scripture or statistics? Speaking of statistics, how about that claim that religious people are more charitable, peaceful and lawful?

Exactly. Much of "science" is based on the idea that there must be a scientific explanation for everything because no supernatural being exists, even if it means attributing supernatural powers to natural causes, ignoring established laws of physics and thermodynamics -- but, apparently, it's alright if "science" claims that these established scientific and natural laws were broken through natural events, as long as they weren't broken by supernatural events. It makes no sense.

You do realize that for something to be considered and accepted as scientific truth all the pieces have to come together right? There are an endless amount of theories coming from an endless amount of individuals. Sure you're going to have people way out in left field making extraordinary claims, are they ever widely considered as factual? If so please cite examples, accreditation providing you with the knowledge to make those judgements would be swell as well.

While I may not have touched, tasted, or seen God, I have seen what I interpret to be signs and works of Him -- and I haven't touched my truck today, or my brain, or you, but I still have reason enough to believe that all of those things exist.

Those things you've seen also probably have a natural explanations or are the product of chance. Theists often attribute the unlikeliness and odds stacked against a situation occurring yet each and everyone of us exists because we beat the odds of millions of other sperm. What do you think the odds are that from your and my fathers sperm that you and I are the ones here today having a discussion? Feel free to do the math, the odds were hugely against us. Is our existence against those odds proof of the divine, absolutely not. I realize that may not be your reasoning, but I bet it can be used as an argument against your reasons.

especially from a non-theist

You're so much more civil. You were involved with a lot of "he hit me first!" situations as a kid, weren't you?

[Rowan]

Having observed everyones posts here, I've noticed a distinct difference between those of atheists and theists view (HA, your views are powerfully atheistic) and the distinction that I've come to see is that it feels as if the theists are always the ones defending their beliefs and not even once have put up argument to an atheists belief. What I consider an argument is a rational point of view, there has been none thus far. One of my friends teachers was talking about the subject of reason and rationality. Upon lecturing the students, the teacher mentioned that in religion, there is no reason or rationality since its entirely faith based. My definition of faith is correct and sourced from the online dictionary. You can believe what you want but when you start attempting to change the definitions of words and religion to try and justify them or create some correlation of rationality and faith, you are wrong.

The argument should not be how being blind is rational, but more-so how being blind is better than being rational, because thats how I see believers of faith.

Arguments such as "oh my grandad was really sick and we prayed and he got better" is not proof of god. If a person is perfectly healthy and he drops dead instantly, is that proof there isnt a god? its the same argument reversed on you.

I cannot fathom why you think we are so arrogant. We are simply enquiring as to why you believe and if you think your reasons are justified in terms of being a rational. Obviously there are people who takes things to extreme, but Im not talking about those people, im talking about the belief of something that you have no evidence of. I'm waiting to see something that will make me think "well hes got a point there" but so far all I've seen is "Gods work is all around us".

[Unknown Entity]

Having observed everyones posts here, I've noticed a distinct difference between those of atheists and theists view (HA, your views are powerfully atheistic) and the distinction that I've come to see is that it feels as if the theists are always the ones defending their beliefs and not even once have put up argument to an atheists belief. What I consider an argument is a rational point of view, there has been none thus far. One of my friends teachers was talking about the subject of reason and rationality. Upon lecturing the students, the teacher mentioned that in religion, there is no reason or rationality since its entirely faith based. My definition of faith is correct and sourced from the online dictionary. You can believe what you want but when you start attempting to change the definitions of words and religion to try and justify them or create some correlation of rationality and faith, you are wrong.

I see no reason why someone can't defend their beliefs. I think everyone has attempted to defend a belief here, and I think that's half the reason for the undermining.

Arguments such as "oh my grandad was really sick and we prayed and he got better" is not proof of god. If a person is perfectly healthy and he drops dead instantly, is that proof there isnt a god? its the same argument reversed on you.

It might not prove an existence of God, or be God's work, but it's the faith that put hope in his relative's heart. Whilst I'd be more concerned and worried about the operation and the biology involved, and the knowledge the doctor possess, some people find comfort in kind words of hope.

I'm waiting to see something that will make me think "well hes got a point there" but so far all I've seen is "Gods work is all around us".

Even I've put an idea out there into a belief of God, and I'm an atheist.

If I did believe in God, I wouldn't view him as a man, a being, or a deity. I'd view "It" as every single force around us, similar to the Gaia principle, but not in the "hippy" way. What if God could be explained as the air you're breathing right now? That way, you could link God to creation, which is what made us in the first place. What if God is not a man or woman, but a force? What if God, quite literally, is everything?

You wouldn't be able to argue with that. Everything around you was made because God allowed it to be created because he is it.

But alas, another of the reasons I don't believe in a God is because I dislike the beliefs in deities (which the above theory would probably become, as God is a God in people's eyes), and especially the worship around them. I dislike the idea that my life was predetermined or written for me; I make choices every single day, and I don't believe someone else of a higher power had already decided for me what my lunch was going to be.

Also, I can't worship a force. A force isn't a deity, and I'd probably laugh at you if you made a shrine to Gravity.

[RamesesII]

I want to quote something I heard today.

Spirituality seeks truth and understanding.

Religion seeks a reward in exchange for belief.

I believe the fundamentals of spirituality is the same as the bases of most organised religions, but true base spirituality seeks truth and understanding in ones inner self without the need to worship or to have faith or belief in a deity only to have faith in your self, for example most Asiatic religions dare I say for lack of a better word help you understand and find virtues, proper ethics and moral judgment.

Religion also has spirituality but at the mercy of a deity, it requires faith and belief in said deity to be able to find your spiritual path, it evokes control of the believer by way of rules and regulations and needs acceptance before one can find their path, if one is to busy following the path of these deities and seeking acceptance than what is overlooked is that we need to seek acceptance with ourselves first.

I don't mean that every religious person out there is this way so don't go berating me for assuming that the masses are parallel to this.

I also find it confusing to read that God has made us his children and yet he supposedly banished Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and then he brought about 40 days and nights torrential rain to punish us for our mistakes and now he turns around and says that every person even the murderers and rapists deserve forgiveness for our sins. This astounds me was there a pivotal moment in history (bible) that changed Gods will towards man is this where Jesus comes into it, was it his will to die for us to show god that we can be forgiven no matter what.
I just find it hard that humans can put so much trust in someone so divine that makes mistakes and his mind can be changed at a whim.

Various pagan religions believed that the sun was a god. They had a great big ball of fire in the sky to prove that their god existed. I'm sure you've seen it before.

I sure hope your not making fun of mine and my peoples beliefs Mr Eastwood that would be a shame if Ra were to hear about this.

[Sasquatch]

Faith in the supposed claim you KNOW there is a deity as described in religious texts is 100% blind.

Do you admit that it's just as blind as faith in the nonexistence of a diety?

Of course we "know". If we didn't "know", there would be no point. Why say, "I believe, but I don't really believe strongly enough to have any confidence in it"?

You clearly completely misunderstand what constitutes proof, evidence and deductive reasoning.

I'm really not sure what's so difficult to understand about this. If you do not have stone-cold undeniable proof, you must rely on faith. I don't know why you have a problem with the idea of general faith -- every one of us, no matter what religious belief, relies on faith not just to support our beliefs but to live day-to-day. In half an hour or so, I I will have to trust in my faith that my truck is still in the garage, that it's still got the half-tank of fuel I remember being in it, that the gear pattern is the same, that my garage door opener still has a battery charge, and that Taco Bell hasn't moved or changed their menu or prices.

I have that faith because what I've seen supports that faith. Now, what you have seen, that all might not support the same faith, which is why you may not hold the same faith as I do.

This ignorant hatred of the entire idea of "faith" is just ... comedic.

I wasn't claiming your belief in your rationality was wrong, I'm sorry if you misconstrued that.

You said "I think you think you're thinking rationally ..." Does that mean that if somebody said, "I think you think you're not a complete dumbass," that it wouldn't be synonymous with "I think you're a dumbass, but you don't realise it"?

No, I poke holes in their beliefs where I think they have weaknesses.

There's a difference between "poking holes" and flat-out insulting. There's a difference between "I see why you believe, but doesn't _________ pose a problem with that belief?" and "you're irrational/illogical/foolish, your beliefs are bullshit, etc."

Where have I twisted scripture or statistics?

Well, let's see. You claimed (wrongly, even after being corrected) that the original Biblical commandment prohibited killing, not murder, which is false. You intentionally left out prisoners who don't identify with a religion to make it look like more prisoners are religious. I already addressed the latter, but I can never be sure if you actually read my posts.

Speaking of statistics, how about that claim that religious people are more charitable, peaceful and lawful?

Well, the cite you loosely referenced actually backfired and showed that, by an very small margin, prisoners in the United States are slightly less religious than the general population. So there's always that.

Here's an article about how religious people donate more time and money than non-religious people, including to secular charities. (The article is about the study, not the study itself -- interestingly enough, as much as capitalists are called "greedy", the same study shows that those against income redistribution are more charitable.)

The Hoover Institution's study on Religious Faith and Charitable Giving

UK article about a recent study that shows that religious people donated more than twice as much money to charity than non-religious.

Here is an excellent article, citing 136 references, on how religion improves society. I recommend this one primarily.

Alright, your turn. And no, anecdotes and blog entries with no sources don't count.

Sure you're going to have people way out in left field making extraordinary claims, are they ever widely considered as factual? If so please cite examples, accreditation providing you with the knowledge to make those judgements would be swell as well.

Check out Ernst Haekel, Reiner Protsch von Zieten, Archaeoraptor, flipperpithecus, Java Man, Orce Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy ...

Those things you've seen also probably have a natural explanations or are the product of chance.

Like I said, my faith is reinforced by the evidence I've gathered and how I interpret it. As is yours by the evidence you've gathered and how you interpret it.

I realize that may not be your reasoning, but I bet it can be used as an argument against your reasons.

I don't see how our existence through minimal odds can be used as an argument against a hand guiding us through those odds.

You're so much more civil.

Look at the remarks made by non-theists/Atheists in this thread, compared to those made by theists. Look at who calls other people's beliefs "bullshit" and who calls other people fools, stupid, irrational, etc. for holding their beliefs, and then look at which side those remarks come from. What I said as a compliment still remains -- it was directed towards not only one of the most civil, respectful posts in this thread, but towards one made by an Athiest, who have a habit (in this thread if not most others regarding religion) of throwing out more insults than questions.

... the distinction that I've come to see is that it feels as if the theists are always the ones defending their beliefs and not even once have put up argument to an atheists belief.

Because Atheists and non-theists have been the ones attacking. One side decides to be offensive, the other must defend.

Partly because of that, religious people haven't gone on the offensive. Nobody here is talking about "you Atheists are stoopid" or anything like that.

What I consider an argument is a rational point of view, there has been none thus far.

You believe there to be no rational point of view supporting religion, and thus would consider any point of view supporting religion to not be rational.

My definition of faith is correct and sourced from the online dictionary.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

You mean like that one?

Now, common sense must come into play here. In the example they use of faith, it would make absolutely no sense if they were referring to blind faith with absolutely no supporting evidence, would it?

I cannot fathom why you think we are so arrogant.

Really? I don't know, maybe it's the fact that you manipulate the definition of faith to make it synonymous with "blind faith", assuming that people with a different faith than yours have absolutely no reason for holding that faith. Maybe it's the fact that religious people are constantly having their intelligence insulted by those who disagree with them, or their beliefs referred to as "bullshit". I don't know, that might have something to do with it.

I also find it confusing to read that God has made us his children and yet he supposedly banished Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and then he brought about 40 days and nights torrential rain to punish us for our mistakes and now he turns around and says that every person even the murderers and rapists deserve forgiveness for our sins. This astounds me was there a pivotal moment in history (bible) that changed Gods will towards man is this where Jesus comes into it, was it his will to die for us to show god that we can be forgiven no matter what.
I just find it hard that humans can put so much trust in someone so divine that makes mistakes and his mind can be changed at a whim.

According to the Bible, God banished Adam and Eve to keep them from living forever with the knowledge of good and evil. They were blissful in their ignorance, but they were deceived into breaking the one rule they had been given. The Flood wasn't to punish anybody, it was to cleanse -- the people didn't want forgiveness and they wouldn't have accepted it.

Before Jesus, forgiveness was only given through sacrifice. He just figured, instead of making everybody sacrifice things for their forgiveness, He would give them the ultimate sacrifice, and all it takes to achieve that forgiveness is to accept it. How exactly is that a mistake? And how do you consider His "mind changing on a whim"?

[Imposter]

Hey Ram-Ram(Rameses) after reading your post above on spirituality and religion I have a question. Forgive me for the potential ignorance but the ideas you propose of self spirituality and the enlightening of one self kinda self defeating? What I mean by this is that if one would limit the understanding and truth to only finding out your inner being/self/whatever than you are really only searching out self glorification and an elevation of onesself. Don't get me wrong that happens in religion also, but it isn't limited to that nor do I think that any self seekingness should be the or even a goal of a religion.

I mean no matter how spirituality butters up the words that is the result right? It is completely self focussed and is very 'I' centered. 'If I can achieve this or if I live like this than I will be better than I am. I want to understand ME better.' I don't want to seem rude or anything but I mean leave it to humanity to make everything that we know and even the things we don't really understand like spirituality about us. I mean really at our core humanity is pretty self serving and self focussed anyway and we try very hard to keep things that way. So stemming from this we get all these can I say crooked views of spirituality and religion? Where the end goal is some sort of elevation of ourselves. Heck I mean even in Christian circles people claim that they have faith only because they don't want to go to hell. It's about them saving their own skin instead of a perspective shift.

This is why I'm glad that within the branch of Christianity there is another side of the spectrum that focuses on God. Call it stupid or whatever but I actually went to school to study out the Bible and you can see that the Bible isn't about us but God. (In my circles God is Triune, three in his persons one in his essence.) The whole crux of the Bible is about him revealing his nature and plan so that he could restore the broken relationship we caused (Sin). I'm sure you all probably don't want me to delve into details and whatnot so I'll refrain unless requested later.

HEY LISTEN!! Before anyone continues reading understand that the next bit is me answering Ram-Ram's later part of the post about if a Divine Entity did exist (God) why would he be changing his mind. So from the question it is assumed that such a Deity may exist. So keep that in mind before you jump all on this saying it is just a bunch of hogwash made up stuff and there is no God. I'm totally open to questions and such, and if requested I can drop verses to support my claims, however I'm pretty sure most of you don't think the Bible is even an inspired book by God, so I don't know if you'd even want verses...does that make sense? Oh...aaannnddd my reasons probably aren't perfect and if you notice flaws please point them out so I can learn from it. (Other than the idea that God doesn't exist so everything is invalid.) I'm not actually sure if I had to put all this but I kinda get the feeling some of us may get intense with the stupidity of people like me that live by faith. So my bad if I piss you off???

So to answer the latter part of your post about God changing his mind on a whim. I would say that perhaps your reading of the text was a little smeared and that is fine. If I may try to give understanding to this I'd like to first point out that God is the perfect expression of all his attributes at all times, which might be hard for us to understand because we usually see things as kinda linear. For example we might see someone post something and say oh he did that out of anger or whatever. We only see one prevlenant characteristic at a moment even though we know that that person might not have even been angry and that that attribute isn't the only one to characterize their lives. Now if we do that with other humans than it must be possible to do that when reading about God who is suppose to be above our understanding to begin with. So what might solely appear as regret or doubt in the narrative of the Bible from God might not solely be that or that at all, same with expressions of wrath and anger.

This all being said I would hold to one of God's attributes as being sovereign. The idea that in eternity past God already knew how everything was going to play out and therefore it plays out. Now before you call out hey I have free will. Free will is totally fine and I don't have a beef with it but because God knows everything he could use our free will in accordance to his plan to begin with. Anyways what I'm trying to get to is that despite the fact that God seemingly changes the plan or changes his mind in the narrative of the Bible doesn't mean he is. I'm not about to say that all life is a game to God just using it as an example but all competitive sports teams have game plans and within those plans are different avenues to take. In basketball for example you may play man to man or zone defense but your goal is still the same in stopping the opposing team from scoring and you wouldn't run the same play over and over again on offense you switch it up. So in God's grand plan of everything he does things differently at different times so that we might have a better understanding of what he is like. For example God cast out Adam and Eve and flooded the world to show that sin isn't something to be taken lightly. (I mean disobeying an infinite God has different consequences than disobeying your parents right?) EDIT: The difference between sports teams and God is that Teams have different plans based on if the opposing team does this or that (Plan A or Plan B) but since God already knew everything he only has a plan A and we from our perspective see things as they transition further in his plan. So in text when it says God regretted or changed his mind it really is only a transition in his plan and not a new one.

As for Jesus paying/dying for mankind I would differ a bit with Sassy on this one. I would say that the debt incurred on mankind for sin was infinite (hence why mankind's punishment was eternity in hell because it would never be paid for fully) could only be paid for in full by something infinite in nature. Now without going on for another few paragraphs explaining it all. God himself could be the only payment to pay the debt as he is the only infinite being. Sacrfices in the old testment time was only a symbol of looking forward to the coming Messiah. (When God would take on flesh and who Christians believe is Jesus) would come and be the propitiation for sin.

Anyways I think it is real hard to condense my beliefs because there is a lot to be understood in even the simple things in the narrative. I'm sure some of you definitely could have done without all the explaining and what not so again my apologies. I'm definitely open to debate and discussion though.

[Clint]

I sure hope your not making fun of mine and my peoples beliefs Mr Eastwood that would be a shame if Ra were to hear about this.

Of course I'm not. I would never do such a thing. For all I know, if I make Ra mad, he'll cause the sun to die and expand in a few billions of years, destroying the entire planet.

Of course we "know". If we didn't "know", there would be no point. Why say, "I believe, but I don't really believe strongly enough to have any confidence in it"?

You don't know shit. If you knew and had confidence in what you believed, then you wouldn't take so much offense when somebody calls your beliefs stupid. If you actually believed in what you say you do, when somebody calls you foolish or stupid for believing, you can merely retort by saying "go **** yourself." No point in getting all bitchy about it.

If you do not have stone-cold undeniable proof, you must rely on faith.

Or you can rely on idea/thought, instinct, or if you just know. Just because you don't have a hundred percent proof of something doesn't make it faith. You don't have faith in your goddamn truck. If you know you parked it in your garage, then it's in your garage. I'm pretty sure you'd be able to hear if somebody were trying to steal it.

For example, I'm looking at a wooden desk right now. I know that the surface of this desk is covered in microorganisms, but I can't see them because I don't own a microscope. Now, I know that they're there, because I understand that microorganisms will cover every space available. However, I do not have faith that they're there just because I can't see them. I just know that they are there.

I don't have faith in microorganisms, because I know they exist. You don't have faith that your truck is in your garage, because you parked it there. People have faith in religion because they don't know if what they believe is true or not. Your truck example is stupid because it does not fit with what you're trying to explain.

Well, let's see. You claimed (wrongly, even after being corrected) that the original Biblical commandment prohibited killing, not murder, which is false.

I guess the part where the bible says "Thou shalt not kill" isn't clear enough. It doesn't say "Thou shalt not murder." It says kill.


And as for your anti-non-religions rant about how religious people are more giving and more charitable then people without religion, the only thing that that actually proves is that you're intolerant of non-religious people, and specifically look for articles across the internet by biased studies that show falsified results.

Those results are about as bullshit as the "studies" that show that atheists are statistically more intelligent then people of religion. A religious belief is not a grant to brag about being more giving, just as atheism isn't a grant to intelligence.

Look at the remarks made by non-theists/Atheists in this thread, compared to those made by theists... but towards one made by an Athiest, who have a habit (in this thread if not most others regarding religion) of throwing out more insults than questions.

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.""

Now, when Martin Luther King, Jr. said these words, he wasn't referring to equality between religions, but it fits. In my last post I pointed out intolerant remarks that you made against atheism. In my post before that, I pointed out more intolerant remarks. Sasquatch, your beliefs are foolish and stupid.

I'm not referring to your beliefs in religion. I'm referring to your beliefs in intolerance. Like I said before, there are two sides to this spectrum, and you're just as bad as anybody who mocks your beliefs.

Because Atheists and non-theists have been the ones attacking. One side decides to be offensive, the other must defend.

Defense in a respectable manner is apparently out of the question.

[OnOneRyder]

There's a difference between "poking holes" and flat-out insulting. There's a difference between "I see why you believe, but doesn't _________ pose a problem with that belief?" and "you're irrational/illogical/foolish, your beliefs are bullshit, etc."

Check your emotions at the door IMO. I rarely flat out call someone an idiot, and if I do it's because they're deserving of such label.

If you do not have stone-cold undeniable proof, you must rely on faith.

I never made the claim that I don't utilize faith in my life, I said you're example was terrible and is not one which requires faith and explained why. You logic in regards to faith in that circumstance is flawed.

Well, let's see. You claimed (wrongly, even after being corrected) that the original Biblical commandment prohibited killing, not murder, which is false.

Show me where I said this please as I don't recall saying such a thing.

Here is an excellent article, citing 136 references, on how religion improves society. I recommend this one primarily.

I only made it a few examples into that link before I facepalmed, totally legitimate article. It claims religious beliefs decrease the likelihood of divorce while nearly every site I venture onto gives contrary statistics.

"Numerous recent studies have found a relationship between religious practice and less permissive attitudes toward non-marital sex." Because it is wrong? Biased article is biased. I actually exited the site altogether when they tried link secularism with lower academic achievement.

Check out Ernst Haekel, Reiner Protsch von Zieten, Archaeoraptor, flipperpithecus, Java Man, Orce Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy ...

I'm almost convinced you found all these examples on a creationist website because it's far too convenient as they are the most popular examples theists utilize in their attempts to discredit science.

I especially want to see your take on australopithecus aka Lucy.

Look at the remarks made by non-theists/Atheists in this thread, compared to those made by theists. Look at who calls other people's beliefs "bullshit" and who calls other people fools, stupid, irrational, etc. for holding their beliefs, and then look at which side those remarks come from. What I said as a compliment still remains -- it was directed towards not only one of the most civil, respectful posts in this thread, but towards one made by an Athiest, who have a habit (in this thread if not most others regarding religion) of throwing out more insults than questions.

Look at the beliefs of those who are continually active in these threads, non-theists. Most of the people coming and going share their theistic views and don't come back, so yea...you're going to see more heated stuff coming from those who return for more. You yourself are proof that theists as well throw some punches while Unknown and Heartless frequent nearly all of these religious threads and tend to converse slightly more civil than Rowan or myself. Neither side is solely guilty nor innocent, which is why I suggest everyone leaves feelings at the door. You seem to think throwing insults is a relinquishment of intellectual capacity.

Do you admit that it's just as blind as faith in the nonexistence of a diety?

I'll most definitely admit that it is just as blind to claim the knowledge there is no god yes, a claim either way is one which cannot be known. I will not however say I use faith in the position I've always held that I do not believe there to be a god, especially one as described by modern theology. Faith is only required when someone makes a claim of knowledge, I have not done so.

Of course we "know". If we didn't "know", there would be no point. Why say, "I believe, but I don't really believe strongly enough to have any confidence in it"?

To know is to be certain, not through interpretation but through facts and truths. What you have are beliefs, you have no such knowledge of a deity and claiming so invalidates any belief that you are a person of reason. Making such a outlandish claim on such a simple definition is essentially shooting yourself in the foot with a cannon.

You cannot know the truck in your garage that you parked is yours, yet you can know the existence of a god? Who is the arrogant one here, seems to me like you went back for round two with that cannon.....this time using your own argument.

[Furore]

Well, my beliefs have changed. Consider me an Agnostic Theist these days. Agnostic as I don't believe I'll ever know for sure if there is or isn't a God, Theist because I theorise a God or higher power exists. At the moment it's the only hypothesis that satisfactorily explains how things came into existence from nothing. But I don't feel all that strongly about my hypothesis, there's a great chance I'm wrong thanks to having insufficient data available.

The only stances I agree with are Agnosticism; be it not willing to theorise, Theist or Atheist. Only because I'm going with a scientific approach and until the existence or inexistance of a God/Gods is disproven, the statements that God does or does not exist have no scientific basis. Oddly I still have that little instinctive twinge that something more exists, but who knows, it might just be a trick of the mind or something. I do know my faith was squished by seeing more and more useless suffering in the world. If there is an omnipotent being presiding over us, I'd feel naught but hatred for what has been unnecessarily wrought.

I do hold some respect for all beliefs as for all I know those that hold them are correct, but no respect for those that won't do the same. It was intolerance in the past that caused friction, not religion itself. Too many irreligious are following in the footsteps of those they condemn for similar reasons. And don't get me started on door to door religion paddlers that don't take no for an answer or those types that say anyone not sharing their beliefs is going to Hell. Any place they're not going sounds like paradise to me.

[sayian]

8 years later... and sayian is no longer religious as of 5 years so far..for more reasons than there were reasons for me being religious my first 30 years on earth. its almost overwhelming the thought of actually trying to explain the totality of my personal growth. i literally just typed and deleted a paragraph trying. Basically, sometimes you get exposed to something that you cant deny. and when you are faced with it, you have to decide what kind of man you are. A coward who will dwindle back inside the comfort of ignorance, or a competent human being capable of intellectual growth. Some history wasnt taught(purposely). And, you know, when something so major in your life is in question, the pursuit of knowledge is like the pursuit of cake to a fat kid..

[Taco-Calamitous]

I'm still religious, and I didn't bother to read what anyone else said 8 years ago, again. If I did the first time.

I've been thru a lot in the last 8 years. There were times where I was more religious than not, and I found that I struggled more when I wasn't religious. Logic would say that it's in my head, but to be religious is illogical. You kinda have to be okay with that to be religious, and I am. But it's helped me get through life, whether it's in my head or not. It's what works for me. It's what's gotten me along on my journey. And everyone's journey is different.

All I can say is "good luck" to the rest of y'all.