Discussion on the FSM- keep it clean/respectful

LTS,

It's been a long time.  I ended up giving a considerable amount of time and thought to my reply to Mano (more than I had anticipated) and will reply to your questions either later this evening or sometime tomorrow.   

Well your post was more towards mano than myself but i will address a view points as you mention me.

First of all, its silly to assert that i KNOW something for 100% certain when i simply cant do that, i can assert that such a beings existence is not required for reality to function or morale deeds to be done, or i can point towards synthetic traits that i see in religion and god and thereby make a good argument for synthetic creation ( simplified point but i dont want to waste a bunch of time rambling on). so while i can assert that i dont know that god does not for sure exist, i can still be very comfortable in stating that your god does not exist as far as can be known in the realm of science lets say. at the end of the day, that stance is a falsifiable claim, i just see no evidence that has been presented that does in fact falsify it, should such evidence be brought forth then ill think about bending the knee so to speak...ok i wont, as i dont think we should live like that but i would say im wrong then start up the resistance to tryrany!

mankind is not scientifically or intellectually advanced enough at this time to prove the existence of a divine creator?  What kind of God would He be in the first place if He was meant to be understood or observed under a microscope?

You called it, this entire line of reasoning is a cop out. You have to apply logic to your own statement here, lets say you are right in that we as finite imperfect beings cant begin to comprehend gods mighty majesty, then it would simply follow that; why in the world would you assert to believe in something or follow something that you cant possibly understand? it just so happens though, that in this case you can see the merits of gods supposed work through his inspired word or actions that are depicted in his book, again as i eluded to earlier- you dont need to throw his actions under any microscope or go in detail in to what his morale compass or mind may contain, its pretty easy to see he is a sadistic tyrant.

.  People of faith likewise see the veritable hand of God in every single thing around us

Then you were never truly a believer.

Yeh...thats not fair to say. i was a believer, a very devout one i might add, and i remember praising gods name a lot when good things happened; i also recall saying silly crap like ' it is god's will' when it may very well have been but it was still wrong. the difference it seems here SK, and of course this is pure speculation, is that mano and i did take it upon ourselves to learn about our faiths and then kept following that path to a point where we realised that the morality portrayed to us was indeed immorale in our minds, it didnt mesh with what we would deem to be right, we so the inate systems of control in our world and didnt like it. I personally came to dislike the misogyny and basically, the brainwashing that went on. the assertion that to believe in something without evidence is morally superior than to believe in something with evidence is just down right silly to me ( simplified but i hope you get the point). i rambled on a bit but my point was meant to be that you seem to have tried to employ that same critique on religion as mano and i but come to the complete opposite conclusion that does not seem to be the logical conclusion of such a path of critique, may i ask you plainly- why is it with your obvious issues with religion and honestly, fair observations of the human condition and somewhat sketchy evidence availble to you, do you still take the stance of a believer? may i ask if there was something profound that occured in your life in which you saw the ' hand of god'?

im curious is all, as it seems like for all intents and purposes you are like mano and i but are holding on to something.

oh and finally:

You're a smarter guy than that Mano -- it was an analogy.  Both you and 2K have referenced Zeus in defense of your standpoint along with pointing out the mythological archetypes of Jesus Christ.  By virtue of insisting that God doesn't exist you are relegating Him to the same status as the other mythological figures that you have mentioned and have referred to Him as such on more than one occasion.  Ironically, your link from the previous page (which is something I'll get to in more detail later) poses the question "If Jesus, why not Hercules?".  It's about midway down the page and is a relatively common theme among atheists as it is used to support the idea that, due to the lack of significant corroborating historicity, Christ (and God) should be regarded in the same light as any mythological figure with similar or derivative qualities. 

what was your point here? i may just be missing it but your assertion is correct, that is pretty much what we are doing and are trying to show you. you didnt defend the opposing stance...

2k

Well your post was more towards mano than myself but i will address a view points as you mention me.

First of all, its silly to assert that i KNOW something for 100% certain when i simply cant do that, i can assert that such a beings existence is not required for reality to function or morale deeds to be done, or i can point towards synthetic traits that i see in religion and god and thereby make a good argument for synthetic creation ( simplified point but i dont want to waste a bunch of time rambling on). so while i can assert that i dont know that god does not for sure exist, i can still be very comfortable in stating that your god does not exist as far as can be known in the realm of science lets say. at the end of the day, that stance is a falsifiable claim, i just see no evidence that has been presented that does in fact falsify it, should such evidence be brought forth then ill think about bending the knee so to speak...ok i wont, as i dont think we should live like that but i would say im wrong then start up the resistance to tryrany!

mankind is not scientifically or intellectually advanced enough at this time to prove the existence of a divine creator?  What kind of God would He be in the first place if He was meant to be understood or observed under a microscope?

You called it, this entire line of reasoning is a cop out. You have to apply logic to your own statement here, lets say you are right in that we as finite imperfect beings cant begin to comprehend gods mighty majesty, then it would simply follow that; why in the world would you assert to believe in something or follow something that you cant possibly understand? it just so happens though, that in this case you can see the merits of gods supposed work through his inspired word or actions that are depicted in his book, again as i eluded to earlier- you dont need to throw his actions under any microscope or go in detail in to what his morale compass or mind may contain, its pretty easy to see he is a sadistic tyrant.

.  People of faith likewise see the veritable hand of God in every single thing around us

Then you were never truly a believer.

Yeh...thats not fair to say. i was a believer, a very devout one i might add, and i remember praising gods name a lot when good things happened; i also recall saying silly crap like ' it is god's will' when it may very well have been but it was still wrong. the difference it seems here SK, and of course this is pure speculation, is that mano and i did take it upon ourselves to learn about our faiths and then kept following that path to a point where we realised that the morality portrayed to us was indeed immorale in our minds, it didnt mesh with what we would deem to be right, we so the inate systems of control in our world and didnt like it. I personally came to dislike the misogyny and basically, the brainwashing that went on. the assertion that to believe in something without evidence is morally superior than to believe in something with evidence is just down right silly to me ( simplified but i hope you get the point). i rambled on a bit but my point was meant to be that you seem to have tried to employ that same critique on religion as mano and i but come to the complete opposite conclusion that does not seem to be the logical conclusion of such a path of critique, may i ask you plainly- why is it with your obvious issues with religion and honestly, fair observations of the human condition and somewhat sketchy evidence availble to you, do you still take the stance of a believer? may i ask if there was something profound that occured in your life in which you saw the ' hand of god'?

im curious is all, as it seems like for all intents and purposes you are like mano and i but are holding on to something.

oh and finally:

You're a smarter guy than that Mano -- it was an analogy.  Both you and 2K have referenced Zeus in defense of your standpoint along with pointing out the mythological archetypes of Jesus Christ.  By virtue of insisting that God doesn't exist you are relegating Him to the same status as the other mythological figures that you have mentioned and have referred to Him as such on more than one occasion.  Ironically, your link from the previous page (which is something I'll get to in more detail later) poses the question "If Jesus, why not Hercules?".  It's about midway down the page and is a relatively common theme among atheists as it is used to support the idea that, due to the lack of significant corroborating historicity, Christ (and God) should be regarded in the same light as any mythological figure with similar or derivative qualities. 

what was your point here? i may just be missing it but your assertion is correct, that is pretty much what we are doing and are trying to show you. you didnt defend the opposing stance...

2k

Haven't read much after this post so if anyone addressed it and I missed it I apologize but the undelined portion is meaningful to me.

Beach: i think we have all tried to take our crack at addressing the loss we feel in life and such, i think i did so in the last page. but i must say this entire post was very well written, and it certainly provokes a great deal of thought for me, its very pertinent and i agree with pretty much all you said.

your premise that we are wired differently has a lot of merit to it, for some reason, we just come to different conclusions.

I also would feel some solace in knowing that those i loved, love, and will love will never truly be lost to me but i just dont see how that can be possible, i can dream of scenarios that faciliate such a notion but nothing that holds any merit to it.

2k

what was your point here? i may just be missing it but your assertion is correct, that is pretty much what we are doing and are trying to show you. you didnt defend the opposing stance...

I know.  That part was just to point out to Mano that I wasn't misinterpreting your words while also explaining the analogy I made on the previous page since he had made the comment: "Not to speak for 2k, but I think you are misinterpreting his words, King.  We aren't having a discussion about Zeus and his exploits."  I honestly thought he was breaking my balls or attempting to insult my intelligence with that comment (hence the one-line P.M. Mano) because we obviously aren't discussing Zeus's rise to Olympus and conquest of the Titans.

I don't KNOW in an academic sense, but I have absolutely ZERO DOUBT that God is real and that He desires to have a relationship with me.

Ok now thats just rubbish. you just conceeded that you can not know yet propose to have no doubts? surely a sliver at least must exist. A SLIVER I SAY!

No, 2k, no doubt.  Zero.  Not a sliver.  I am 100% convinced in the existence of God and the truth of the Bible.  The Bible defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".  I have that faith and there is simply no alternate reality for me.  Now, as to the Bible I will admit there are things I still don't understand - such as whether some of the things I take literally are in fact literal, or if some of the things I consider metaphor are really metaphor.  But in the purpose and essence of the Bible I have complete trust.
As for my point pertaining to memeories etc, the key part of that quote was 'in reality'. all those things are observable traits of our existence, we can observe inate morality in the animal kingdom, while actions or motive i should say is not always tangible there is something to be said for observing what we perceive to be love and care for a lioness' cubs, to protect them and nurture them, to guide them.

Just because your inference or perception of an emotional bond is based on physical observation does not make it more valid than one based on a "spiritual" sensation.  A lioness "caring" for her cubs could just as well be an ingrained instinctive response designed for the survival of the species with no emotion attached, no?  Observable traits are required for scientific validation (even if only the results of an interaction are observable using delicate instruments), but a lack of observability does not mean something does not exist.  I don't think I'm making any sense here but I'll leave it anyway and move along.  Maybe you can explain to me what I mean

Again back to one of my original contentions that you didnt really address, by what measure do you know god to exist?

I'm not sure I understand your question, "by what measure".  Do you mean the reasons I believe, or the evidence I perceive to prove His existence?

No, 2k, no doubt.  Zero.  Not a sliver.  I am 100% convinced in the existence of God and the truth of the Bible.  The Bible defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".  I have that faith and there is simply no alternate reality for me.  Now, as to the Bible I will admit there are things I still don't understand - such as whether some of the things I take literally are in fact literal, or if some of the things I consider metaphor are really metaphor.  But in the purpose and essence of the Bible I have complete trust.

Well, i dont know what to say to that. the evidence of things not seen...i guess i should just refer you to the point i made about religion advocating the stance that believing in something without evidence is superior to actually having evidence. I guess we are just wired differently, perhaps curiousity is not as big of a trait in you as it is in me or others. i cant live my life like that, i cant just be told something and go with the flow thinking it is the absolute word of god, or inspired word of god when it contains teachings that simply completely contradict what i deem to be right, and just so happen to be what i would expect from sexually repressed ignorant bronze aged men.

Just because your inference or perception of an emotional bond is based on physical observation does not make it more valid than one based on a "spiritual" sensation.  A lioness "caring" for her cubs could just as well be an ingrained instinctive response designed for the survival of the species with no emotion attached, no?  Observable traits are required for scientific validation (even if only the results of an interaction are observable using delicate instruments), but a lack of observability does not mean something does not exist.  I don't think I'm making any sense here but I'll leave it anyway and move along.  Maybe you can explain to me what I mean

Your penultimate sentence is accurate in this case. Something being observable is superior to me as a piece of evidence than simply assuming that x or y exists. while the lack of observable aspects of something dont mean that something can not or does not exist, it does however reduce the probability of such a thing existing and at the very least should lead to the statement ' i dont know this exists or i can not say that this exists therefore, for now it does not exist in my world view as i have no reason to believe it'. i could assert the flying spahghetti monster exists, i cant point to any tangible evidence, but sometimes, if you squint real hard and look at the nights sky, you can sometimes feel his tendrils, you cant see them, but it sends chills up my spine.

to speak to the lioness thing really quick. While i understand your point, you are correct to an extent in saying that we basically dont know what is going on in her mind, but the distinction i was trying to make was, you can see the lioness, regardless of the chemical processes that are taking place within her mind, you can see the product and to that extent you have a basis for evidence to begin to infer why that may be? what could such actions connote? i have not seen god do anything, i have no 'faith' if you will that he even exists, no evidence to support that claim, so when people speak of gods love and such things; im left thinking? what are you seeing that im not?

.  Do you mean the reasons I believe, or the evidence I perceive to prove His existence?

Go for it, on both counts, the more data i have on the issue the better i can understand your position.


2k

The bible is supposed to teach us to love one another as well as not to judge each other.  "Let he who is without sin.....".  Yet, who are the main people that have hated on the equal rights of the gay community?  Who's doing all the protesting and telling gay people the are immoral/evil/etc?

I understand your point and I agree to a great extent.  But do you throw the baby out with the bath water?  People love having something, or someone, to hate - that is part of human nature as well.  Holding to the tenets of the Christian faith does not take away your nature - it should alter it dramatically, but I know I'm still human.
Either way, organized religion teaches hate whereas it's supposed to focus on loving one another and not judging.  You can even go through history and see all the wars that were religion based as proof.  That's one of the biggest inherent hypocrisies in my opinion

I am conflicted when this kind of argument surfaces, frankly.  First, I agree that a great many things have been done in the name of religion.  But you should recognize that not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is.  The real problem with Christianity began when the Church became a political tool, and later a political power.  When it becomes politically or economically beneficial to belong to a church you are asking for trouble.  I kid you not, my pastor has talked to men who want to become church deacons because it "looks really good on my resume".  Others want to be ordained because of the power the position may hold in some churches.  My opinion is that if someone asks to be put in a position of authority you better run like hell!  If they are worthy they won't need to ask.  I think that is true of any person in any organization.

My main complaint about "inherent hypocrisies" is that I don't believe an organization can be hypocritical.  I think only people can be hypocritical.  I also hate the term "organized religion" - have you ever seen a religion that is not organized?  I think any time someone uses a term like that as a rallying cry it is good to define what it means to the user.  That is why I asked SteelerKing these questions.

Well, i dont know what to say to that. the evidence of things not seen...i guess i should just refer you to the point i made about religion advocating the stance that believing in something without evidence is superior to actually having evidence.

The quote I posted was simply the Bible's definitin of faith.  It was not meant to say anything about the superiority of one view or the other.  That passage goes on to talk about what people of faith did in the past, referencing other Biblical passages, to make the point that those people did what they did because they trusted in God, and in the promises that He made.

I guess we are just wired differently, perhaps curiousity is not as big of a trait in you as it is in me or others

I was curious about what the Bible had to say and began reading it.  Before I was finished I believed it, despite my lack of understanding about many things, and dedicated my life to Christ.

i cant live my life like that, i cant just be told something and go with the flow thinking it is the absolute word of god, or inspired word of god when it contains teachings that simply completely contradict what i deem to be right, and just so happen to be what i would expect from sexually repressed ignorant bronze aged men.

I wasn't just told anything, as I stated just now, I read the book and it struck me in such a way that I believed it.  I admit that I did have reservations or concerns about many things in the Old Testament because they were also at odds with my opinion on things.  But my conclusion was that if God is God, who am I to tell Him how to run things?
while the lack of observable aspects of something dont mean that something can not or does not exist, it does however reduce the probability of such a thing existing and at the very least should lead to the statement ' i dont know this exists or i can not say that this exists therefore, for now it does not exist in my world view as i have no reason to believe it'.

Return again to the definition of faith.  Faith makes it real, just like your earlier example that your mind gave tangible weight to an emotional response.  I can't explain it, I honestly can't.  My dad wasn't very affectionate when I was growing up, in the sense that he rarely told me "I love you" or did those things that some dads do with their kids to show affection.  But I never doubted that he loved me, and it had nothing to do with the fact that he provided food, shelter, and clothing - those thoughts never entered my mind until I became an adult.  I just always knew my dad loved me, even after a spanking.  Some things just don't require external evidence in my opinion.

Why is it that when I'm checking this thread regularly, nothing happens, but when I have some stuff to do and don't check it for a few hours I fall horrifically behind?!?!?

Both you and 2K have referenced Zeus in defense of your standpoint along with pointing out the mythological archetypes of Jesus Christ.

Actually, I've never used Zeus in relation to Jesus.  Dionysus, Horus, Krishna and a few others...yes, but not Zeus.

It was you that brought up Zeus when trying to imply that because we acknowledge God we at the very least acknowledge the possibility of his existence.  Of course that's true.  I acknowledge that possibility and have said it several times in this thread.

I find the concept of the Abrahamic God extremely unlikely, but I am not at all against the concept of some form of "creator" so to speak.

By virtue of insisting that God doesn't exist you are relegating Him to the same status as the other mythological figures that you have mentioned and have referred to Him as such on more than one occasion.

Yes, I think that the Abrahamic God is very much a mythological figure created by man just like Zeus or any other pagan god.  That doesn't mean that I don't believe there isn't something out there.

Ironically, your link from the previous page (which is something I'll get to in more detail later) poses the question "If Jesus, why not Hercules?".  It's about midway down the page and is a relatively common theme among atheists as it is used to support the idea that, due to the lack of significant corroborating historicity, Christ (and God) should be regarded in the same light as any mythological figure with similar or derivative qualities. 

I've read the essay and yes, he makes that comparison.  Its a valid comparison too.  With the complete lack of physical evidence for the existence of the Abrahamic God or even Jesus, why shouldn't we treat them with the same scepticism and critical eye that we treat the ancient greek and egyptian mythologies?

Is it also then possible to consider that, just like with the planet Earth analogy, mankind is not scientifically or intellectually advanced enough at this time to prove the existence of a divine creator?

See, this is completely backwards to me, King.  The more scientifically and intellectually advanced man becomes, the further we get from proving the existence of a divine creator! 

The reality is that our lives are too short and space and time are too grand for us to ever truly understand our universe.  Perhaps at some point deep into the future we will advance to a level that gets us close, but it certainly won't happen in my lifetime or, realistically, within a few dozen generations.

What kind of God would He be in the first place if He was meant to be understood or observed under a microscope?  To be quantified and verified by observable, scientific means and methods might only depreciate the wonder and majesty of God.  Don't view that statement as a cop-out made by a man of "blind faith" but think of it instead from a purely philosophical standpoint. 

But it is a cop-out, King.

Why does this God have to be mysterious?  Think about if from a rational standpoint...what does this being gain from keeping his true intentions, desires and personage hidden from those he supposedly desires allegiance from?  The whole, "We can't possibly understand His design..." argument is just a bunch of bunk.  Its another weak attempt to explain away an unexplanable problem within any faith.

If this being actually created the universe and all within it, I cannot possibly imagine that having the opportunity to interact with it could ever "depreciate the wonder and majesty".  If anything, I think it would enhance it because it would make it possible for the entire planet to unite in their understanding and praise of this being.

Then you were never truly a believer.

Maybe not.  Like I said, I was raised a Catholic, but was never really given a choice.  I believed not because I chose to believe but because it is what I was taught to believe.  I didn't know any other way, to be honest.  God's existence was assumed. 

Remember the "conundrum" that you and 2K were discussing on the other page when it comes to the death of loved ones?  Here's a quick post-it note for reference.  I realize that your current belief system doesn't allow it, but what could possibly have more merit than being able to console those very same loved ones by looking them in the eye and letting them know with conviction that their loved one is currently in a better place and that you will all be reunited some day?

I didn't say that faith has no merit, just that it has no rational merit.  There's a difference I think.  Of course it would be wonderful to be able to provide my loved ones with some rich fantasy about a wonderful place that they will all go to when they die where they can live forever awashed in the love of some supreme being.  Rationally, how can anyone believe such nonsense?  Its like believing that the cow really did jump over the moon.

I saw the thread about your friend DGNR8/Ryan and although I never knew him, you have my condolences.  You reference him in your profile motto too and he is obviously someone very dear to you.  Would something that presented the opportunity for you to be reunited with Ryan again really be something that was without any logical or rational merit?

I would like nothing more.  The opportunity to converse with Ryan again would be absolutely fantastic.  Just because I would like something to be true, though, does not make it logical or rational.

Logic tells me that when I, or anyone else, die that its over.  When I squash a bug under my shoe, I don't think it goes to some mythical place and lives an eternity as a very happy bug.  Somehow, though, we have all been programmed to believe that we are different.  That just because we are self-aware and have enough intelligence and imagination to create such a place, that there is something better waiting for us than there is for the rest of "God's creatures".  The fear of death coupled with intelligence and imagination can create some pretty crazy ideas!

I don't buy it.  I really wish I could.  In the end, we are just the smartest animal on the planet, nothing more.  When we die, just like every other species, our time is over.

Oh...and LTS and 2k...I am really enjoying your conversation here!  I am staying out of it because I don't think it requires my meddling, but please continue it, I'm learning alot.

The quote I posted was simply the Bible's definitin of faith.  It was not meant to say anything about the superiority of one view or the other.  That passage goes on to talk about what people of faith did in the past, referencing other Biblical passages, to make the point that those people did what they did because they trusted in God, and in the promises that He made.

Well by quoting it i assume you somewhat agree with its message? what is your definition of faith, what do you deem faith to be?

It may not speak directly to the superiority of one view over the other, or more so, that may not be its prime motive, but that is exactly what it does. The message you take away as a child or student is one that i outlined, and i dont think that is a good thing for society, the self or academic study.

was curious about what the Bible had to say and began reading it.  Before I was finished I believed it, despite my lack of understanding about many things, and dedicated my life to Christ.

So my point holds true to some degree at least. When i was referring to the level of curiousity one person has, i quite literally meant to say that curiousity is ambigious in that it seen to be a trait that all homosapiens share yet i think while that is true to a very small degree, it does not do justice to those of us that are truly curious, that is what i was getting at. For you reading the bible was sufficient to sate your curiousity, ( ill use the quran as its more pertinent to me) but for me, i had to not only read the quran, but then i had to go and find out what other scholars had said, what was sciences opinion on the creation of our universe, or humans, or embreology and other things that may have been mentioned. Do i agree with the morale code that is outlined? the more i read, the more debates i watched, the more i came to realise that it was a pile of horse excrement and very hazardous horse excrement at that.

The thing that really gets me is your final sentence, you admit to not even understanding what you had read, hell, you didnt even read it all before you believed it, but yet you believed what it said...WHY? thats what im trying to understand. What part of it connected with you as a person, because no rational applicationof critque or reason that i can think of will allow a person to do what you did. It has to be emotion, something you took from it that you deemed pertinent to your life. If you step away and look at it from a purely objective stance, devoid of emotion and analyse it for what it is; a book with the message of god ( simplified i know but im trying to save time here) you have to start applying what it says with what we know about reality and when you do that LTS, you find it wanting. Metaphors or not, it is not clear. and more so than that, look at its teachings, they are incredibily outdated, women are still seen as the submissive sex. The key to the freedom for this world and the abolishment of poverty will begin with the empowerment of women; the church and religions in general have done a breathtaking job and stifiling the role of women in society. This is just one topic which does not allow me to reconcile what is being put forth in scripture and teachings of prophets and such. I could keep going on and on but lets leave this part here for now, and see where this conversation goes.

But my conclusion was that if God is God, who am I to tell Him how to run things?

If is the key word in that sentence. IF god is god then i would concur with your conclusion, we would be in no position to question a mind that we can not possibily understand but that is not the case. the mind or ideas that are put forth are far to familiar, they are far too human, imperfect, sadistic,ignorant and immoral for me to sit there and think that this is the creator of our universe. this is what it comes down to, what makes you think that god is god? not just that he exists but what makes you think such a being that is discribed in those texts, and commits the acts that he does, is WORTHY of reverence? power should not be all it takes to bend the knee.

Faith makes it real,

You see here again i disagree. Faith at best, makes it a possibility, and the levels of evidence you have determine the likelyhood of the probability of that possibility being true or occuring. Ill go with my recent mushy self and put this forth. I do not know that i am loved for sure,  but i have faith that i am cared for, and that i hold meaning to this other person because of conversations we have had, and actions taken by both of us, but i do not know. Faith is not an inherently bad thing in all cases, all im saying is; is that there should be some GOOD evidence, not juts any old piece of evidence, and more than that, the greater the claim the greater the evidence should be. I mean you could hypothetically forge a letter with the words i love you, signed with the name of this other person and i wouldnt take it to be good evidence as i have no idea about this persons hand writing etc, i would simply have to assume that is the case, and it would go against some of the things we have outlined. Faith in god does not make him real sir. I dont mean to be aburpt, faith is not enough to hold on to something in the face of poor evidence. Trust me when i say, i wish some things were clear and required no faith, i wish sometimes we could just talk and get the answers our minds and hearts yearned for, but wanting something bad enough will not make it real or true, for that we need evidence, for that we need time and effort, leading to proof; the premise of the abrahmic god does not have these things.

2k

This message has been removed by the administrator.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the most beautiful things in this life are spiritual in nature? 

Like what?  Name one beautiful thing that an unspiritual person can't experience.

All the things of the physical world are easily experienced by everyone with the means to do so.

Are we talking about love?  I am deeply in love with my wife and have never loved anything as much as I love my children.

What exactly are we talking about here, STO?

One last thing...you have to give all that you have to find God.  He gave all that He had for you.

What of himself has he given me?  Nothing that I can tell.  Yet, you are asking me to give all that I have to find him?  Why?  I have better things to do with my life.  If this God wants me to sacrifice those things for him, he can do a better job of revealing himself to me first.  Until then, I'll maintain my status quo.  Thank you very much.

I refuse to believe in a FSM that is based around a tomato sauce, I will only believe in a FSM that is Alfredo or Pesto based!

Maybe this has been answered but, has anyone explained why the big man doesn't appear to people anymore?  I've read about him talking to Jonah, Moses, etc but I don't recall anyone the last hundred years or so having a legit talk with him.  Did he just like the people back then more?

Think about it.  You have all this hatred in the world.  If he took 5 minutes out of his eternity so speak to the entire world at one time, everything would be better.  He'd tell us how he feels about wars, the killing, if he really hates gays, did Jesus really have blond hair and blue eyes, etc.  All could be done in the span of 5 minutes out of his eternity.  

LTS,

Life beckoned and I had some delusional Giants fans to correct with their ongoing beliefs that Eli Manning is an elite quarterback who is also better than Ben Roethlisberger but I do owe you a response.  LINK  Let's not talk about it.


SK, I'm very interested to know a few things based on the posts you have made thus far:

1. What aspects of the Bible do you not take literally?

Parables are used within the Bible to illustrate various biblical concepts and I largely view the Bible itself as a collection of parables.  While it would take an historically long post from me (that means longer than my previous ones) to cover every example, let that suffice for my answer.  The Book of Genesis, to get a little bit more specific, should not be taken literally.  Here's a great read by a non-atheist that covers Genesis in exhausting detail and echoes my own thoughts: LINK. 

2. What are the inherent hypocrisies and contradictions of organized religion?

LINK  I enjoyed RavensR#1's follow-up response to that post. 

3. Do you really think that not being a member of a mainstream denomination makes you immune to the restrictions of religious organization?

Take another look at your own verbiage there my man.  "Immune"..."to the restrictions of religious organization".  Why would I want to be restricted by the conventions of an institution that is only loosely representative of what it attempts to define as "The Word of God"?  Who puts restrictions on a man's faith and the way in which he choses to worship The Almighty?  

Every group that meets is tied together by a set of rules, structure, and doctrine.
             
This is true, but when it comes to matters of faith, these are largely defined by man.  Structure is extremely uself in the physical world but has limited meaning in the spiritual one.  God's rules are laid out in the Ten Commandments, which doesn't even require faith to abide by, and Christian rules can be summarized in the passage of John 5:24: "I tell you the truth, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life."  That is a very simple "rule" to adhere to as a man of faith. 

So do you really see yourself as being free from organized religion?

I see myself as being free to pray and worship in a manner that glorifies God and Jesus Christ.