A perfect world without religion

[WHATEVER]

If you honestly think that humanitys good trats wouldn't exist without religion then you'd stop vamping jesus blood and start thinking with a little rationality. Any of the good human characteristics promoted by anyone or anything (religion included) are promoting what is already there.

WTF - What I'm saying is that religion is needed to keep faiths -duh! And you quoted the wrong comment.

let me be the first to personally hit you in the face with the back of a hammer.

Typical....btw - your virtual hammer didn't do much damage

 

[WHATEVER]

You claim to be compassionate person and "you don't care just about yourself" but you seemed to have to problem trampsing all over the opinions and beliefs of anyone who does not agree with you. As for someone who's critisizing others of their lack of "brain"...well, perhaps you'd like to amend your damn near countless gramatical errors before you make any such claim.

Argghh!! Damn - your more offended then he was and I'm not even talkin to you...strange...Anyway - first of all I never said that I was compassionate so don't add things that weren't there to begin with to try and make your self feel better. I'm not tramping his beliefs either - did I tell him to stop being athiest? -NO! He can believe or not believe anything he wants I'm not his mother for fux sake. And as for gramatical errors - what are you, a nerd?...Well I suppose that goes without saying - but my point is that I as well as many other ppl on this website don't give two shytes about grammar -my grammar is perfectly fine when it needs to be -It's readable...but if that makes you feel better go ahead and hate it. - I see countless, stupid errors on this website but do I go around saying "boo hoo look at your errors" -NO - get it together.

With a "compassionate", "self-less", and "intelligent" person such as you on his side, what harm could us "sad heathens" possibly do to your "god".

You couldn't do anything to God obviously -have you looked in the mirror l8ly-but to other people you could. And learn this Mr. "I think I know it all" - When I'm talking to 'RoyalOrleans', I'm talking to 'RoyalOrleans' not you..nice to see you so uptight though.

 

[Jhony5]

Much better off. All religion does is take small arguments and focus them into large ones.

Does anyone rember the Simpsons episdoe where Marge asks Lionel Hutz to envision a world without lawyers?

He sees everyone on earth holding hands and dancing together with flowers in a hippy fantasy. Ask a religious man the same thing and I think something similar would be produced.

As silly of a reference that this is, i'd have to agree. Tha main effect that religion has on society is seperation. It doesn't bring peace. Review your history if thats what you think. Religion puts unrealistic ideas in ones head and begats a problem with suffering an entire culture under the ancient ways of man. Catholosism in Africa. Africans are amoungst the hungeriest and poorest nations in the world, due largely to the lack of contraception handed them by their old world religion. 80% of the worlds cases of AIDS are from catholic Africa.

Now the world is being assaulted by Islamic fundamentalist. As long as mankind turns to the sky for guidance, then thats exactly what you will get. Guidance from oxygen particles, carbon monoxide, and so forth. Which I would think to the average educated person, seems kinda dumb to ask an invisable man to grant your wishs and give you advice. Im the stuborn type I suppose. I firmly think very few civilized people actualy believe their own religion. Technology and science have replaced the need for religion, as religion was mans way of explaining the unknown. Now with our advancing knowledge of the world we live on, science has provided a logical substitute for religious guess work.

 

[angie]

Technology and science have replaced the need for religion, as religion was mans way of explaining the unknown. Now with our advancing knowledge of the world we live on, science has provided a logical substitute for religious guess work.

Ahh, but Jhony, there will always be those questions that science will probably never be able to answer. Why are we here? What is our purpose? Where do we go when we die? What is the bigger picture in life?
Science will never be able to answer philosophical questions, which is what religion does for many.

 

[papabryant]

Religion puts unrealistic ideas in ones head and begats a problem with suffering an entire culture under the ancient ways of man. Catholosism in Africa. Africans are amoungst the hungeriest and poorest nations in the world, due largely to the lack of contraception handed them by their old world religion. 80% of the worlds cases of AIDS are from catholic Africa.

I'm not picking on you, really Jhony.

This does not gibe with the data on conversions. Most of Black Africa rejected Christianity until late in the 20th Century when AIDS became an issue. Christianity was the "White man's" God. And they wanted nothing to do with it or their white oppressors.

Most of that part of Africa was either Muslim or animist. Animist shamen's reaction to AIDS was to tell men to sleep with a virgin. Little girls were raped in large numbers, some as young as 10 months old.

Catholicism teaches abstinance (so you don't catch the disease in the firstplace) until marriage, and monogamy in marriage (limiting exposure to the disease by limiting partners). The number of AIDS victims among Catholics (and Protestants) is significantly less than the general population. Conversions increased as this fact became known.

In addition, Christians took care of those infected, where as traditional regional religions did not (despite Muslim teachings on taking care of the sick), also driving up conversions.

Abstinance before and monogamy after marriage works 100% of the time to prevent sexual transmission of AIDS. Condoms fail at least a third of the time. Changing values will stop the AIDS virus much more effectively than thin rubber. In fact, it is already working.

Peace.

 

[Crazywumbat]

Argghh!! Damn - your more offended then he was and I'm not even talkin to you...strange...Anyway - first of all I never said that I was compassionate so don't add things that weren't there to begin with to try and make your self feel better. I'm not tramping his beliefs either - did I tell him to stop being athiest? -NO! He can believe or not believe anything he wants I'm not his mother for fux sake. And as for gramatical errors - what are you, a nerd?...Well I suppose that goes without saying - but my point is that I as well as many other ppl on this website don't give two shytes about grammar -my grammar is perfectly fine when it needs to be -It's readable...but if that makes you feel better go ahead and hate it. - I see countless, stupid errors on this website but do I go around saying "boo hoo look at your errors" -NO - get it together.

True, you never openly claimed to be compassionate, but you state that "we" are hateful, psychotic, and uncompasionate because we refuse to suscribe to a fairytale, thus implying that you obviously posess all said qualites that we lack because the power of Christ is on your side. So in that way, yes, you did claim to be compassionate. So fine, no, you did not tell anyone to stop being an athiest (like those words would have mattered comming from your mouth), but you did insult athiests on in your last two or three posts which WOULD be considered trampsing over the beliefs of us. Now mind you, it matters not to any of us, I'm only pointing out how very un-"Christian" it is of you to be so openly intolerant. As for my point on grammar, I don't give a **** how elementary your basic writing skills are, I'm just saying that if you want to insult other people for their lack of intelligence, maybe you should form a proper sentence. And if producing a coherent sentence makes me a nerd, then I'm Stephen Hawkins baby.

You couldn't do anything to God obviously -have you looked in the mirror l8ly-but to other people you could. And learn this Mr. "I think I know it all" - When I'm talking to 'RoyalOrleans', I'm talking to 'RoyalOrleans' not you..nice to see you so uptight though.

Well your first sentence is just mindless rabble and riddled with so many errors that I won't even bother trying to decipher it. However, if you don't want other people to respond to your posts MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T BE POSTING IN A PUBLIC DEBATE FORUM...

 

[RoyalOrleans]

WELL DUH!!

I love it when folk start off discussions or conversations with this old saying. I especially love it when it is used without warrant.

You do it without the thought of God!

Well.... sometimes I do make them scream "Oh God!" or "Jesus Christ!".

Your just another sad heathen

My "just" is a heathen? If you meant You're just another sad heathen., then I got news for you, missy.

I'm not sad about being a heathen. Welcome to my level.

life isnt sad but unlike you I dont just care about myself and I was saying that in general so don't try to be a smart ass.

You should receive an award for "Longest Run On Sentence". You really should try making sense once in a while.

mayhem? maybe not quite but close enough.

I was only quoting you.

compassion

It was compassion that stayed my hand in a lot of situations I've found myself in over the years.

soul

I do have soul! I love James Brown! That man has enough to spread around!

conscience

It was having a conscience that has kept me from berating you into a sniveling shadow of your former self.

brain

How can you assume that I don't have a brain? Is it because I disagree with you?

Please allow me to retort.

Your pathetic attempt at attacking my intelligence has come to an abrupt halt. You can not formulate opinions without the guidance of others. Your thoughts when manifested upon this thread appear to be the ramblings of a six year old. And if you are a six year old, its way past your bed time.

then maybe just maybe you would understand

No I understand just find. You're an idiot and will always be an idiot.

 

[Outlaw2747]

"To the original question..."

To be honest with ya, me being an athiest and all, I really couldn't tell you. Religion affects the world in so many ways, in both good and bad (I must admit...) because certain things started from a religious ideology such as marriage. So I would only gwet blown out of the water if I even tried to answer this question I will admit. But I do have a question for WHATEVER...

What exactly is wrong with us athiests???

 

[Jhony5]

I'm not picking on you, really Jhony.

This does not gibe with the data on conversions. Most of Black Africa rejected Christianity until late in the 20th Century when AIDS became an issue. Christianity was the "White man's" God. And they wanted nothing to do with it or their white oppressors.

Most of that part of Africa was either Muslim or animist. Animist shamen's reaction to AIDS was to tell men to sleep with a virgin. Little girls were raped in large numbers, some as young as 10 months old.

Catholicism teaches abstinance (so you don't catch the disease in the firstplace) until marriage, and monogamy in marriage (limiting exposure to the disease by limiting partners). The number of AIDS victims among Catholics (and Protestants) is significantly less than the general population. Conversions increased as this fact became known.

In addition, Christians took care of those infected, where as traditional regional religions did not (despite Muslim teachings on taking care of the sick), also driving up conversions.

Abstinance before and monogamy after marriage works 100% of the time to prevent sexual transmission of AIDS. Condoms fail at least a third of the time. Changing values will stop the AIDS virus much more effectively than thin rubber. In fact, it is already working.

Peace.

I hear what your saying, however Africans have a wide range of customs and from what i've seen the AIDS epidemic stretchs from the cities of Johanasberg to the more remote areas. Their sexual habits seem to be more monogamus however they seem to marry very young. What you see here is a marraige of Xtianity and African culture. They call themselves catholic but they mix-n-match it with African traditon, what little remains. It is an extrordinaraly violent country (speaking towards South Africa) that is predominately Catholic. You are correct about the rape situation. Johanasberg is the rape capitol of the world. But I would not be so fast to blame the injection of religion for the wild nature of their culture. This is not to sound racist, only factual. Africa has always been a hotbed of disperportionatly violent inter-racial conflict. Ya the Xtian white man stepped in and made things far worse for them. The Xtian missionaries have long moved into the most war torn and desperate areas and in many cases forced the bible upon them. After all, in those days religion was often the power behind government. As you made mention of, many now convert to catholisism as a means of false hope offered by the practice. But they carry on like the human animals they are and the beliefs and catholic traditions (no condoms etc.) has done nothing but hurt them. Look at that region and tell me all the damn years that catholisim has been shoved into their small minds that it has done any good? Its worse then ever. Catholics with machetes in hand and rape on their minds. Sounds like thats working out real good for them.

The end of apartite was thought by the narrow minded, that had forgoten the truth about African history, that peace and order would retake the region. However it did not. It got worse fast as the various factions vollied for power and even went as far as to engage in genocide. The faction responsible for the murder of 800,000 Rawandans in less then 2 months was executed by those whom claim the Catholic cross. They did it not on the name of religion, it was their deep seeded cultural power struggle that reigned above the supposed principles of their faith. So that, along with many other endless issues, shows me religion has done nothing but hinder the African peoples progress into a civilized society.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of what you said, with exception to your comment that religion has "changed the values" of the people as a whole. I don't buy that ****, never have, never will. I meet people in America, the land of abundance and opportunity, that call themselves good christians. You know the type, and thier not rare. They go to church every sunday and they wear a gold cross necklace. Then they get caught by their wives ****ing the 22 year old woman next door. Then after the divorce their youngest son is traumatized after being tricked into masturbating his preist. Remember, the pillar of the religion is the very vehicle which allows for sin. FORGIVENESS/CONFESSION.
Cheat on your wife, touch your sons wee-wee, all can be forgiven. Its the timeless sales pitch of Xtianity. So what has been accomplished? Money is earned, polictal alliances are made, and the masses of financial contributers to their "cause" are tamed by the knowledge of forgivness and endless existence in the loving arms of god.

And yo PAPA.........Don' take this like i'm argueing with ya. Don't want to get ya all stirred up and have ya start whippin' on me with that juicey brain of yours, you smart son of a bitch.

The catholic church knows as much as any reasonable person that people are dying because of the churchs ancient ways.
Http://allafrica.com/stories/200511141386.html

 

[papabryant]

Hello!

Their sexual habits seem to be more monogamus however they seem to marry very young.

I would disagree with you here, at least as far as those of animist/traditional religious faith go. In West Africa, if a single woman found a man attractive she simply went to him in the night. The western taboo on premarital sex did not exist.

What you see here is a marraige of Xtianity and African culture. They call themselves catholic but they mix-n-match it with African traditon, what little remains.

That is the nature of Cathoicism, its universiality and its ability to mesh with existing culture. This is a plus in most cases. MAYBE the jury is out here, but I tend to still think it is a plus.

It is an extrordinaraly violent country (speaking towards South Africa) that is predominately Catholic. You are correct about the rape situation. Johanasberg is the rape capitol of the world. But I would not be so fast to blame the injection of religion for the wild nature of their culture. This is not to sound racist, only factual. Africa has always been a hotbed of disperportionatly violent inter-racial conflict.

True enough, but always based on tribal relations, with religion, politics, and other social issues used as excuses for warring, rather than the actual cause for war.

Ya the Xtian white man stepped in and made things far worse for them. The Xtian missionaries have long moved into the most war torn and desperate areas and in many cases forced the bible upon them. After all, in those days religion was often the power behind government.

Here I disagree with you entirely. What the history of Europe has shown, with the exception of the period between Constantine's conversion and the Investiture controversy (and possibly earlier than that-given Charlemaign's behavior) it is supposedly Christian governments giving lip service to Christian teachings that has caused the problem.

Case in point: Christian missionaries began their work of converting the native peoples of the Americas soon after the beginnings of the European voyages of discovery, both in the north and in the south. The arrival of Columbus heralded the transmission of Spanish culture and therefore of Roman Catholicism into American soil. Within thirty years the Spanish had gained control of central Mexico, and by 1551 had founded a university in Mexico City.

European settlement had a devastating impact on the native peoples. Many were killed through disease, war or enforced resettlement. Missionaries were very critical of European dealings with Indians or blacks brought over from Africa to work the new plantations. Critics of colonization were openly opposed to the brutal military conquest of native peoples. For them this meant conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ. For instance, both Bartolom

 

[papabryant]

Let me give some Bonhoeffer quotes to wet your appetite:

After all, we are told, our salvation has already been accomplished by the grace of God... It was unkind to speak to men like this, for such a cheap offer could only leave them bewildered and tempt them from the way to which they had been called by Christ. Having laid hold on cheap grace, they were barred forever from the knowledge of costly grace. Deceived and weakened, men felt that they were strong now that they were in possession of this cheap grace -- whereas they had in fact lost the power to live the life of discipleship and obedience. The word of cheap grace has been the ruin of more Christians than any commandment of works.

-----

But when once Christ had called him, Peter had no alternative he must leave the ship and come to Him. In the end, the first step of obedience proves to be an act of faith in the word of Christ. But we should completely misunderstand the nature of grace if we were to suppose that there was no need to take the first-step, because faith was already there. Against that, we must boldly assert that the step of obedience must be taken before faith can be possible. Unless he obeys, a man cannot believe.

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace. Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian "conception" of God. Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. "All for sin could not atone." Well, then, let the Christian live like the rest of the world, let him model himself on the world’s standards in every sphere of life, and not presumptuously aspire to live a different life under grace from his old life under sin. That was the heresy of the enthusiasts, the Anabaptists and their kind….

Through the call of God, men become individuals… Every man is called separately, and must follow alone. But men are frightened of solitude, and try to protect themselves from it by merging themselves in the society of their fellow-men and in their material environment. They become suddenly aware of their responsibilities and duties, and are loath to part with them. But all this is only a cloak to protect them from having to make a decision. They are unwilling to stand alone before Jesus and to be compelled to decide with their eyes fixed on Him alone…. It is Christ’s will that he should be thus isolated, and that he should fix his eyes solely upon him.

 

[eisanbt]

Catholicism teaches abstinance (so you don't catch the disease in the firstplace) until marriage, and monogamy in marriage (limiting exposure to the disease by limiting partners). The number of AIDS victims among Catholics (and Protestants) is significantly less than the general population. Conversions increased as this fact became known.

Yes monogamy and abstinance does that, but I know few religious folk who are accually abstinant before marriage. Let us also not forget that this is simple "Good advice" if you want to avoid the risks or sex, advice which is also preached by sexuel professional (Not the kind who work for $50 a pop)

In addition, Christians took care of those infected, where as traditional regional religions did not (despite Muslim teachings on taking care of the sick), also driving up conversions.

By which you mean that rich westeners took care of them and tried to spread their teachings. I'd have no beef for Chritian aid organizations if they'd just leave the christien part out of it. It is because christianity has the resources to help that it is such a majour player. The christen west and its massive influence are not mere conincidence. And let us not also forget the cathloc opposition to condom use and interference in 'others' trying to teach Africans about contreception, helping end overpopulation/starvation, as well as helping stop the spread of AIDS even amoung those (the majority) who don't practice abstinence.

Abstinance before and monogamy after marriage works 100% of the time to prevent sexual transmission of AIDS. Condoms fail at least a third of the time. Changing values will stop the AIDS virus much more effectively than thin rubber. In fact, it is already working.

The reason AIDS has become such a problem is because these practice are not taught, and the 'equipment' is not availble. Again abstinence is more effective, obviuously, but that need not be tied to dogma and need not exclude condom use for those who choose otherwise.

And according to statistics/ testing, condoms work 99% as long as you use them PROPERLY. If people don't know how to use them then they're just as ****ed (no pun intended). Trying to make an entire contenant abstenant is simply imposible, a futile battle. We've effective emans of meeting human desire half-way and making it safe, theren lays the best option.

 

[tiredofwhiners]

And according to statistics/ testing, condoms work 99% as long as you use them PROPERLY. If people don't know how to use them then they're just as ****ed (no pun intended). Trying to make an entire contenant abstenant is simply imposible, a futile battle. We've effective emans of meeting human desire half-way and making it safe, theren lays the best option.

I learned how to use them in school. You take it out and roll it over a cucumber. So when ever i have sex there's always a wrapped cucumber on the bed. So I'm safe, at least i learned something in school.

 

[papabryant]

Yes monogamy and abstinance does that, but I know few religious folk who are accually abstinant before marriage. Let us also not forget that this is simple "Good advice" if you want to avoid the risks or sex, advice which is also preached by sexuel professional (Not the kind who work for $50 a pop)

Well, even some of the 25 dollar girls advocate using them according to reports. But by the same token, using a condom is just "good advice", just not as good as abstinence.

By which you mean that rich westeners took care of them and tried to spread their teachings. I'd have no beef for Chritian aid organizations if they'd just leave the christien part out of it.

This is just plain silly of you.

When the U.S. government sends food to disaster victims, they print U.S. in big letters on the side of the cans. Why? So people would know who cared enough to send the lima beans.

When Christians offer aid, they do so out of what Christ has done in their hearts. When asked why they are helping, they tell why. Maybe it gives them a chance to tell about Jesus, but most often it doesn't. They help either way.

It is because christianity has the resources to help that it is such a majour player. The christen west and its massive influence are not mere conincidence.

I quite agree, but probably not for the same reason you would give.

And let us not also forget the cathloc opposition to condom use and interference in 'others' trying to teach Africans about contreception, helping end overpopulation/starvation, as well as helping stop the spread of AIDS even amoung those (the majority) who don't practice abstinence.

To quote Bonhoeffer again: If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can't, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.

Condom education doesn't work. Statistics prove this. What does work is holding up a standard and expecting people to live up to them. Those standards stand in stark contrast to what they are already doing. With all respect to the compassion of the pro-condom crowd, what they do by teaching condom use first is to teach that risky behavior can be done with no consequences. If you want a person to succeed so they CAN feed themselves and stop having babies they cannot take care of - TEACH THEM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS. This isn't rocket science.

The reason AIDS has become such a problem is because these practice are not taught, and the 'equipment' is not availble. Again abstinence is more effective, obviuously, but that need not be tied to dogma and need not exclude condom use for those who choose otherwise.

IF that were the way it was being taught you and I would have no disagreement. Its not.

And according to statistics/ testing, condoms work 99% as long as you use them PROPERLY.

That is not correct. Male condoms have a 14% failure rate, and female condoms have a 21% failure rate.

In 1993 the University of Texas analyzed the results of 11 different studies that had tracked the effectiveness of condoms to prevent transmission of the AIDS virus. The average condom failure rate in the 11 studies for preventing transmission of the AIDS virus was 31%.

If people don't know how to use them then they're just as ****ed (no pun intended). -- (none taken ) Trying to make an entire contenant abstenant is simply imposible, a futile battle. We've effective emans of meeting human desire half-way and making it safe, theren lays the best option.

And here is where we disagree. I think we CAN set societal standards and people WILL make every effort to meet them. Prior to the sexual revolution of the 1960's WE were doing that. It wasn't perfect compliance, but the majority did. Empirical evidence stands in my favor here.

Of course you end up with lame "Leave It To Beaver" reruns, but, hey....

Peace, Tom

 

[papabryant]

I learned how to use them in school. You take it out and roll it over a cucumber. So when ever i have sex there's always a wrapped cucumber on the bed. So I'm safe, at least i learned something in school.

(Web site says I had to have 10 characters. I only wanted to put 1 smiley.)

 

[Jhony5]

So I guess the question that remains is, without belief in god, would mankind feel no obligation to be moral? Would the term morality even exist? I think so. I feel morality is a two-pronged entity. Both instinctive and learned. Despite the ominous teachings of the church, man is not born with this mis-guided concept of "original sin". The infant mind is a spawning circuit board of electrical conections being developed. Therefor a mind cannot be 'born' evil without developmental issues being present. In the presence of, and under the guidance of evil/sin, a budding mind would make connections and develop under the influence of immoral behavior. However I do not feel it is nessasary for a developing mind to be in the presense of morality in order to make the connection. I've met children whos parents are devoid entirely of morality. Yet they seem to instinctively resist the development of immoral behavior.

Our problem as a society in relation to morality is we allow it to be dictated to us via religious document, thus distorting the origin of moral behavior. The fear of divine retrebution is a perverted manner in which to teach mankind to behave moraly. Once a human grows older and encounters situations which cause him/her to doubt the existence of god, then the moral teachings that were instiled begin to break down. If one never had established a link between god and morality then their own moral code is less likely to break down.

 

[papabryant]

So I guess the question that remains is, without belief in god, would mankind feel no obligation to be moral? Would the term morality even exist? I think so. I feel morality is a two-pronged entity. Both instinctive and learned. Despite the ominous teachings of the church, man is not born with this mis-guided concept of "original sin". The infant mind is a spawning circuit board of electrical conections being developed. Therefor a mind cannot be 'born' evil without developmental issues being present. In the presence of, and under the guidance of evil/sin, a budding mind would make connections and develop under the influence of immoral behavior. However I do not feel it is nessasary for a developing mind to be in the presense of morality in order to make the connection. I've met children whos parents are devoid entirely of morality. Yet they seem to instinctively resist the development of immoral behavior.

Our problem as a society in relation to morality is we allow it to be dictated to us via religious document, thus distorting the origin of moral behavior. The fear of divine retrebution is a perverted manner in which to teach mankind to behave moraly. Once a human grows older and encounters situations which cause him/her to doubt the existence of god, then the moral teachings that were instiled begin to break down. If one never had established a link between god and morality then their own moral code is less likely to break down.

I cannot disagree more to both of your questions: the existance of God and source of morality/evil.

No one is born an atheist. People choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians. And no matter how strenuously some may try to deny it, atheism is a belief system. It requires faith that God does not exist.

Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time--with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe--can make such a statement based on the facts. To put it another way, a person would have to be God in order to say there is no God.

Have you has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.? The library presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in various academic fields. What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience? Most people will likely respond, "I don't know. I guess a fraction of one percent." If they are even partially close to knowing .5%, the question is "Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?"

To your second question: the burden lies on you to prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from good?

And no fair saying "I just know that some things are evil. It's obvious." That's an evasive answer.

The point is that it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good. Otherwise we are like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south without the absolute reference point of the compass needle).

The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of "absolutely good." If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which one has the right to judge something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of Hitler. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God, rather than disproving it.

But if God does in fact exist, then why hasn't He dealt with the problem of evil in the world?

God is dealing with the problem of evil, but in a progressive way. It is a false assumption that God's only choice is to deal with evil all at once in a single act. God is dealing with the problem of evil throughout all human history. One day in the future Christ will return, strip power away from the wicked, and hold all men and women accountable for the things they did during their time on earth. Justice will ultimately prevail. Those who enter eternity without having trusted in Christ for salvation will understand just how effectively God has dealt with the problem of evil. And this is the only possible way to deal with the problem, because if God declared that all evil in the world will now simply cease to exist, every human being on the planet--present company included--would simply vanish into oblivion. No chance of redemption. God could have created man in such a way that man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether, but such a scenario would mean that man is no longer man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in programmed ways.

Without a necessary point of reference sufficiently removed from human control, an objective morality is not possible, only a sujective one imposed by will alone - Nietzsche's wet dream perhaps, but dangerous for children, current or former.

 

[Jhony5]

..a person would have to be god in order to say that there is no god.

And I say to you, A person would have to be god to say that there IS a god. Because if god exist within the context described to us from the bible, then it would indeed require an omnipresent/omnipotent to find him in this world. This is the old "You can't prove there is'nt a Santa Claus" arguement and i'm not buying into it.

It requires faith that god does not exist.

For atheism ya, sure it does. But you've made a classic Xtian error here. "If you do not have faith in god then you have faith there is no god". I am not Atheist, more agnostic. Anyone whom subscribes themselves wholey to any man made belief system, be it atheism, Christianity, judism, budism, whatever, is a fool. I have faith in no man/entity that is unproven and invisible.

posted by: PAPABRYANT
Have you has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.? The library presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in various academic fields. What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience? Most people will likely respond, "I don't know. I guess a fraction of one percent." If they are even partially close to knowing .5%, the question is "Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?"

This whole paragraph speaks volumes towards the arrogance of Xtian beliefs. You blantantly paint the average man as to stupid to deny god. I understand god just fine and i'm a straight C student. God did not create man, man created god. there is no evidence that god created man, is there? The bible itself stands as the documentation of the creation of god, as god was created by ancient and humurously ignorant man. Of course i'm speaking towards the Xtian version of god. The bible IS the christian religion, in book form. So look at it. Read it. The laughable inaccuracies and weak hearted attempts at providing man with a desription of his life and universe based on what amounts to witchcraft. Wonderfuly painted descriptions of political intrigue, murder, sex, and yes even monsters. But wait theres more. An Action-hero, Jesus Christ. Well not so much action, but hey he was a hero right? I mean we should all believe this account of Christ as it was written by people that were so god ****ing stupid they thought pork was evil. Of course they didn't know that you have to store and cook meat at proper temperatures. Jesus woulda told them if they had asked, meh maybe he was to busy. Lets not forget the long held tradition of Catholics eating "the body of christ". Well its just a wheat cracker but hey, symbolism man, there's only so much Jesus we can eat. So why eat the cracker? It shows faith in Christ. Why you ask? Because when they came up with this "tradition", wheat was a damn dangerous thing to eat. They stored it in large unsanitary holding areas that would fast become tainted with rat feces, thus spreading the plague about. "So if you have faith in god, the one that we created out of our vast knowledge of the universe, then eat wheat". "Ohhhhh it was the rat **** that killed all my family, ohhhh I thought that was satan".
PAPA, you know I could go on and on but I feel that is sufficaint to shoot down your theory that ignorance of facts causes a lack of faith in god. It seems quite the other way to me.

By what process do you distinguish evil from good?

Well I can tell you I don't refer to a 2,000 year old book written by the abhorantly ignorant ancestors of man. The terms "evil" and "good" are both very subjective terms when used in this context. The difference between me an Xtians in this matter is this. Xtians will tell you what good and evil are. They will go on to tell you that you are aligned with evil, and they are not. They will tell you why, as it is written. I do not need an "infinate reference point" to tell when a person is 'motivated' by evil or good. I do not need to meet the infalably good perfect being in order to recognize either. What I find puzzling about your statment in this regard is, Xtians are in the business of selling exactly what your telling me no man can do. Which is defining good and evil. How can they do this, I ask? Hmmm, well I guees its because they know god. Most Xtians will tell you this. "I have a personal relationship with Jesus". No you ****ing don't!!! You think you do, you say you do, BUT YOU DON'T!!!

posted byAPABRYANT
God is dealing with the problem of evil, but in a progressive way. It is a false assumption that God's only choice is to deal with evil all at once in a single act. God is dealing with the problem of evil throughout all human history. One day in the future Christ will return, strip power away from the wicked, and hold all men and women accountable for the things they did during their time on earth. Justice will ultimately prevail. Those who enter eternity without having trusted in Christ for salvation will understand just how effectively God has dealt with the problem of evil. And this is the only possible way to deal with the problem, because if God declared that all evil in the world will now simply cease to exist, every human being on the planet--present company included--would simply vanish into oblivion. No chance of redemption. God could have created man in such a way that man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether, but such a scenario would mean that man is no longer man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in programmed ways.

Can you prove this? That your god is dealing with .....anything? OK well maybe thats a loaded question. Hmmmm, the above paragraph is loaded with Xtian land mines, polished throught time as the story of the bible has fallen apart. I had better be careful here as i'm sure you have a snappy christian bumpersticker your prepared to qoute.
Really what you wrote here is romantic and sounds quite nice. But where is the method to all this madness? What reason is there for all this? A perfect mystery contribed by simple humans whom wished to sell a new form of control and government. If somebody asks me to do something I naturaly ask "why?". Ill dumb it down for all to comprehend. Why would god, in his infinate wisdom, create so many people in life as a means of 'judging' their souls only to then take posession of their souls provide a settlement for them in the afterlife? I know you don't know the answer, but this has always been the logic that denies me the ability to pledge faith in god. You have alot of terms that sound almost definitive of your god, omnipotent, omnipresent, all-seeing, all-knowing. I have terms that I know to be fact for your god. Invisible, uncomunicable, and powerless.

Invisible: Because no one can see him. If I could see him I would change my ways and help to make the world a better place. (without becoming a "robot")
Uncomunicable: Because no one hears him. If I could I would know of his true power and would do my best to make the world a better place. (without becoming a "robot".)
Powerless: Because he has no power here. If he had power would he not use it to help the ones he loves?

God could have created man in such a way that man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether, but such a scenario would mean that man is no longer man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in programmed ways.

I have an answer for this. God would not have to create "robots" in order to express his power and his will. He would not have to destroy evil in order to accomplish this. It would require a great act. An act that could not be disputed by man as the act of god. In essence he would merely need to provide man with an account of himself, his power, his glory, in order to fairly provide man with the knowledge of god. Which is my point exactly. Knowledge and faith should never be seperated by man when considering the merits of any subject. If you split the two, then you have nothing of real substance. I have knowledge in the sun. I get the light I need to see, I get the warmth that brings life, I witness the orbital dance of earth around it which provides us with the seasons. But ya know what I like best about knowledge and faith in the sun? If I ever doubt it exist, if I ever struggle with my faith in the sun, I can walk right outside and see it, I can feel it on my skin. Unless its night time, but alas, I will know to the minute what time I may see it again in the A.M. If I had only faith in the sun and lacked the knowledge of it, then the world would be a cold, dark, and horrible place.

 

[papabryant]

A few more notes in our conversation:

And I say to you, A person would have to be god to say that there IS a god. Because if god exist within the context described to us from the bible, then it would indeed require an omnipresent/omnipotent to find him in this world. This is the old "You can't prove there is'nt a Santa Claus" arguement and i'm not buying into it.

Let me qualify my statement to clarify it. In the process, I think you will see the error you have stepped into.

To say there is a god requires one of two things, omniscience (A person would have to be god in order to say that there is no god) or the actions of that god revealing his existance, presence, and identity to us.

That is what the Bible provides - the verifiable record of God's interaction with us through the medium of history.

For atheism ya, sure it does. But you've made a classic Xtian error here. "If you do not have faith in god then you have faith there is no god". I am not Atheist, more agnostic. Anyone whom subscribes themselves wholey to any man made belief system, be it atheism, Christianity, judism, budism, whatever, is a fool. I have faith in no man/entity that is unproven and invisible.

The problem is here is twofold - first, Judaism/Christianity are historically based religions, by definition they ARE verifiable; second, you define faith in a way the Bible does not.

Look up the word "pistis", which is the Greek word most often translated in the New Testament as "faith". (A form of pistis is used over 240 times in the NT.) As a noun, pistis is a word that was used by the Hellenic world as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof. As a friend of mine wrote in an article on the definition of faith, Aristotle and Quintiallian use the word pistis in this way, and in Acts 17:31 it is used this way:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.


​

Note what is being said here - God has given PROOF of His reliablility, therefore He can be trusted when He says He will judge the world.

http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html - My friend's article gives a very detailed definition of the way the Bible defines faith.

This whole paragraph speaks volumes towards the arrogance of Xtian beliefs.

No, it speaks to how evidence is used and the statistical probablility of getting a correct answer in the absence of enough evidence.

You blantantly paint the average man as to stupid to deny god.

The average man, UNLESS HE IS BEING ACTED UPON BY SOME OTHER FORCE (stupidity, ignorance of the facts, arrogance, threats of violence from others, peer pressure, etc.) cannot help but accept God, given the weight of evidence. Its THAT overwhelming.

Atheist Richard Carrier once wrote that if God wanted everyone to believe in Him, he should have wrote on the Moon "Jesus is Lord" in big block letters. Someone replied back that some still wouldn't believe because they thought God should have wrote in cursive.

Given the amount of research I do into Christian history and thought (my Associates degree was in Documentary filmmaking, and I am a current double major in Philosophy and Ancient Near Eastern History - so I am a Philosopher/Historian by avocation and soon vocation), the Christian believer in me has to ask "How much more ****ing evidence is needed!?! (Rhetorical question Jhony, its not aimed at you. )

God did not create man, man created god. there is no evidence that god created man, is there?

Yes, there is plenty. As part of a class on Medieval Philosophy, I wrote a paper taking two arguements for the existance of God, fusing them, plugging in the evidence given by science for the Big Bang, evolution, etc., and then taking the results and comparing them against Genesis and the Hindu cosmology (which more than a few scientists and philosophers compared favorably to the scientific results in the 60's). In the paper I quote Robert Jastrow, the former head of NASA as saying he took one look at the Big Bang theory and thought His "colleagues would all run out an join the First Church of Jesus Christ of the Big Bang." I posted the paper and the appendix (very important) on my blog

http://beer-and-theology.blogspot.com/2004/04/kalam-and-teleological-arguements-as.html

and

http://beer-and-theology.blogspot.com/2004/04/appendix-1-to-kalam-and-teleological.html

Take a look.

 

[papabryant]

The bible itself stands as the documentation of the creation of god, as god was created by ancient and humurously ignorant man.

This is modernist bigotry, and is beneath you. Simply because a population in the ancient past lived in a pre-scientific society, it did not mean they did not know the difference between natural and unnatural/supernatural phenominon.

Of course i'm speaking towards the Xtian version of god. The bible IS the christian religion, in book form. So look at it. Read it. The laughable inaccuracies and weak hearted attempts at providing man with a desription of his life and universe based on what amounts to witchcraft.

This is also beneath you.

Whenever I run across any person who claims found of contradiction or error I assume they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Here's why.

It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of the Bible -- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any culture -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields.

Obviously the vast majority of believers spend their entire lives doing little more than reading the Bible in English (or whatever native tongue) and importing into its words whatever ideas they derive from their own experiences. This process is very often one of "decontextualizing" - reading it like it was written yesterday and for you personally. Of course if the church as a whole is locked into this mentality, you may well suspect that critics (whether Skeptics or other) and those in alternate faiths are no better off.

Let's anticipate and toss off the obvious objection: "Why did God make the Bible so hard to understand, then?"

It isn't -- none of this keeps a person from grasping the message of the Bible to the extent required to be saved; where the line is to be drawn is upon those who gratuitously assume that such base knowledge allows them to be competent critics of the text, and make that assumption in absolute ignorance of their own lack of knowledge -- of being "unskilled and unaware of it."

And is my observation to this effect justified? Well, ask yourself this question after considering what various fields of knowledge a complete and thorough study of the Bible requires: Linguistics/language, Literature, Textual Criticism, Archaeology, Psychology, Social Sciences, History/Historiography, Theology/Philosophy, Logic, Biology, Physics, ...the list goes on and on. The best one can hope for is to become an expert on one or two (as I am trying to do) - and then, (this IS the kicker) CONSULT EXPERTS IN OTHER AREAS WHEN NEEDED!!

How serious is this?

A carefully crafted argument about a text being an interpolation can be undermined by a single point from Greco-Roman rhetoric. A claim having to do with psychology can be destroyed by a simple observation from the social sciences. As i have said, not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect -- what then of the non-specialist critic who puts together a website in his spare time titled 1001 Irrifutible Bible Contradictions? Do these persons deserves our attention? Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts. They haven't done their homework.

And to pick on you Jhony, your next point puts you in that catagory.

Wonderfuly painted descriptions of political intrigue, murder, sex, and yes even monsters. But wait theres more. An Action-hero, Jesus Christ. Well not so much action, but hey he was a hero right? I mean we should all believe this account of Christ as it was written by people that were so god ****ing stupid they thought pork was evil.

How many people died from eating undercooked pork in the ancient world? Bet none of them were Jews.
Try Googling the name Joseph Lister. Read very carefully - as YOU are alive today because of him - and the science he developed after reading the kosher laws found in the Bible.

Lets not forget the long held tradition of Catholics eating "the body of christ". Well its just a wheat cracker but hey, symbolism man, there's only so much Jesus we can eat. So why eat the cracker? It shows faith in Christ. Why you ask? Because when they came up with this "tradition", wheat was a damn dangerous thing to eat. They stored it in large unsanitary holding areas that would fast become tainted with rat feces, thus spreading the plague about.

No, the plague came about because of rat FLEAS, and did not hit the Jews to any great extent, while the other civilizations who did not heed the Biblical wisdom died like flies. (That includes Christians in the Middle Ages.)

PAPA, you know I could go on and on but I feel that is sufficaint to shoot down your theory that ignorance of facts causes a lack of faith in god. It seems quite the other way to me.

I'm waiting for you to shoot it down. So far, all I've seen is someone else who doesn't know what they are talking about act like they do. Which is VERY disappointing I must say.

Well I can tell you I don't refer to a 2,000 year old book written by the abhorantly ignorant ancestors of man.

Then at least take this word of advice - Stay away from rats who are scratching themselves. While you are at it, stay away from hospitals, schools, libraries, convalesant homes, soup kitchens and the like, as they are ALL Christian inventions.

The terms "evil" and "good" are both very subjective terms when used in this context. The difference between me an Xtians in this matter is this. Xtians will tell you what good and evil are. They will go on to tell you that you are aligned with evil, and they are not. They will tell you why, as it is written.

And they will tell you how to STOP being allied with evil.

Imagine, for a moment, we were walking down a busy downtown street - you going east, me going west.

As we pass each other, you stop me and tell me not to step into the next intersection when the light changes because if I do, a bus will run through the light and hit me, mangling my body in a senseless and violent death.

One of two things is going to happen - either I am going to say "Get away from me you nutcake!", and walk on past, or I will ask "How do you know this is what will happen?" Which one I do is my choice

For our discussion lets assume the latter - you tell me God told you this would happen. Either I will heed the warning or dismiss it and proceed on down the street. Once again, my choice.

Let's say I proceed on to the intersection (whether I think you're crazy or mistaken is irrelevant), and when the light changes...

WHAM!!!!!!

A bus slams into me, dragging me underneath for 300 feet.

As difficult as that image may be, imagine what YOU will be feeling at that moment.

Your head becomes swimmy. You say to yourself, "I could have stopped this. Maybe if I had been more persistant. Maybe if I had tried to physically restrain him from getting to the intersection." Maybe you cry hysterically, or scream in frustration and rage, or vomit in the gutter. All that runs through your mind is "I knew this would happen, yet I could not stop this person from dying?" ------

This is very much what we Christians feel when we witness to other people of different religions and beliefs.

We Christians DO claim to have a different relationship with God than others do - because we claim that in our search for God, God reached out and took our hand, lifted us out of the blinding fog we were walking around in, looked us square in the eye and said "I've got a hold of you. Now you reach back into the fog and grab someone else's hand and lead their hand to Mine."

This is because those who do not "grab the hand of Jesus" are fated to continue to wander around in the fog, where there are things also wandering around just waiting to run into them. People stay trapped in the fog wondering if those "things" are what they are looking for. We know there will come a time when His hand will be pulled away - not because He wants to pull it away, but because no one else wants to come up out of the fog.

THAT is something that sends most Christians into panic attacks (explaining why some Christians witness to others sooo badly) - many of those lost in the fog are people we love desperately. And even if we don't know these people at all, why would we not warn them that those things in the fog are the buses that are about to hit them. But it is still their choice as to whether to come up out of the fog.

I'm sure you have heard the story of how, when Christians stand before Jesus, He will "dry all their tears." Most people, including many of my fellow Christians think this will be a happy time.

They are sadly mistaken.

Remember the scene in "Schindler's List" where Liam Neeson stands there in the train yard screaming into Ben Kingsley's chest, "That car... I could have saved 14 more people. This pin, it's solid gold. I could have bought four more people! Those people are dead because I kept this pin!"

That is what I will go through when I stand before Jesus to give an accounting for my life.

Yes, all my tears will be wiped away. But for one moment in eternity I will ask myself what else I could have done to prevent someone else from deciding they would rather be hit by a bus.....