Has your outlook changed since realising there is no God?

Shryke

midlandsmissus wrote: »

It's like trying to argue with a brick wall. The above makes no sense. If you think religion isn't true, and by definition as an atheist you don't, you can't say that one is better than the other.

'That group of people believe in God', 'That one person believes in God', they both believe in something I don't believe in but the religion is better because it is longer established' ??

It's hypocritical and makes no sense whatsoever,

And please, Batman? We're talking about people who have studied the religions of the world, studied spirituality, realised what they don't agree with and come to their own set of beliefs. What if some-one looks at catholiscism and sees that: the original message was good, there are alot of historical evidence showing that this was tampered with and has been replaced with patriarchal powerful structures that is the Cathoic church today. What if that person says I don't agree with the Catholic Church as it stands today, I like what Jesus said about helping others and I think there is a God, I'm going to go about my own life with my own beliefs and not join a religion (which is really some-one elses' interpretation of an idea).

Why just dismiss somebody that has put that much thought into it, and say religion is 'better', a religion you don't agree with anyway?

So you think religion was tampered with. Then you have no idea what original message there was and there is no word of God that exists. It's all compromised. Your solution to this is to pick your favorite bits and ignore the rest, because the parts you choose are going to be the true word of God? Because the teachings of Jesus are definitely pure, no one tampered with them?
It's a refusal to commit to belief and a childish notion that you can go all willy nilly about what is real that loses my respect. What don't you understand? Batman is as viable as cobbling random myths and parables into actual belief, actual faith in something. Sure start from scratch and just make up your own altogether. It won't make much difference and at least it might be original.

I'm waiting for you to qualify that statement of yours about energy using your 1:1.

Yours sincerely, A Brick Wall.

martingriff

housetypeb wrote: »

Wow, the thought police have arrived.

I think he was questioning his respect for the people and the dead if he is not religious why was he at a religious cermony

midlandsmissus

Shryke wrote: »

So you think religion was tampered with. Then you have no idea what original message there was and there is no word of God that exists. It's all compromised. Your solution to this is to pick your favorite bits and ignore the rest, because the parts you choose are going to be the true word of God? Because the teachings of Jesus are definitely pure, no one tampered with them?
It's a refusal to commit to belief and a childish notion that you can go all willy nilly about what is real that loses my respect. What don't you understand? Batman is as viable as cobbling random myths and parables into actual belief, actual faith in something. Sure start from scratch and just make up your own altogether. It won't make much difference and at least it might be original.

I'm waiting for you to qualify that statement of yours about energy using your 1:1.

Yours sincerely, A Brick Wall.

I have to say, on a lighter note, the last part made me laugh

Lads, with all the degrees in here we should be running the world! Or at least gteting together for a good discussion...:)

5uspect

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Either you think Science and Spirituality can be inter-linked or you don't. If you don't I'm sure it will seem wishy washy to you.

However, there are and have been a great many spiritual scientists.

You miss my point. Define spiritual. Because I guarantee you that will get as many different definitions as people you ask. It's a vague meaningless term.
Einstein called it wonder at the grandeur of the Universe - in a secular sense. The Pope would perhaps claim it means something about a connection between the (vague) concept of the soul and the (wishy washy) idea of God. You might consider it a warm fuzzy feeling when you think about something.

Science, in contrast - and you should know this, does not deal in such vagueness. It is not a matter of personal conviction, it is in fact due to the very definition of Science. You can be a spiritual person who is a Scientist, you can be a Catholic who is a Scientist, you cannot be a Catholic Scientist or a Spiritual Scientist; you leave you personal beliefs at the lab door. Had you ever performed any research and subjected it to peer review you would know this.

How do we test different ideas about the spiritual? How do I build an experiment in the lab to measure it. What equations should I use to predict it?
Perhaps brain imagining to understand the strict neuro-chemical behaviour?

dirtyden

humbert wrote: »

It's not much of an explanation but should satisfy you that I'm not making stuff up.
Google Book

Right, this does not support the point you made previously. There is nothing out there to support the point you made previously as you stated it.

midlandsmissus

5uspect wrote: »

You miss my point. Define spiritual. Because I guarantee you that will get as many different definitions as people you ask. It's a vague meaningless term.
Einstein called it wonder at the grandeur of the Universe - in a secular sense. The Pope would perhaps claim it means something about a connection between the (vague) concept of the soul and the (wishy washy) idea of God. You might consider it a warm fuzzy feeling when you think about something.

Science, in contrast - and you should know this, does not deal in such vagueness. It is not a matter of personal conviction, it is in fact due to the very definition of Science. You can be a spiritual person who is a Scientist, you can be a Catholic who is a Scientist, you cannot be a Catholic Scientist or a Spiritual Scientist; you leave you personal beliefs at the lab door. Had you ever performed any research and subjected it to peer review you would know this.

How do we test different ideas about the spiritual? How do I build an experiment in the lab to measure it. What equations should I use to predict it?
Perhaps brain imagining to understand the strict neuro-chemical behaviour?

I really don't have enough time to debate this as I have to prepare work for tomorrow, but I would like to because your points are good.

Science and Spirituality are by very definition different. You are correct - there is no personal opinion in Science, it is facts, stats and peer reviews. spirituality is personal feeling and emotion. But I also feel spirituality is : what happens after we die, and there have been scientific studies on this.

And this is where science is investigating spirituality.
There are many doctors investigating the NDE experience, and what happens to us after we die, and this is where science and spirituality cross. Anyway I must go, hope to link up with this discussion again!

bleg

token101

gbee wrote: »

I brought my children up with no God, no Santa.

Recently we had a family reunion and the subject came up, my children said they felt superior to the others who believed and the teachers tried to make them lie, after that failed they asked them not to say anything.

My daughter admitted to having believed in the Tooth Fairy as I had not expressly included the Tooth Fairy as non existent.

We had an otherwise normal time, Christmas had both the Crib and Santa, they were not #banned# it was a bit of fun and a nice thing to do as wanted.

So you denied your children Santa because it was a 'lie'? That's the second stupidest thing I've ever heard, only topped by the fact that this knowledge as a child made your kids feel superior to other kids, who were probably having the time of their lives :pac: Some of the best Christmas memories most people have as kids are writing the letter and getting the An Post reply, putting food out for the reindeer and the excitement of Santa coming that comes with it. To be deliberately denied all that in some effort of truthfulness is pretty horrible in my opinion. If the phrase 'ignorance is bliss' was ever relevant, it's here.

humbert

dirtyden wrote: »

Right, this does not support the point you made previously. There is nothing out there to support the point you made previously as you stated it.

Balls. I did some more reading only to find out that I had misunderstood that phenomenon.

token101

keelanj69 wrote: »

I dont have a degree. Guess I shouldnt comment :-(

Don't worry, it's nothing special. This thread has proven that thinking isn't for everyone.

Aiel

Ah,its that time of the week again for another church/religion bashing thread.The After Hours forum should have a sub forum at this stage for all of this stuff.Should this thread not be moved to the Athetism section?

gbee

token101 wrote: »

. If the phrase 'ignorance is bliss' was ever relevant, it's here.

Totally irrelevant, ignorance requires a lack of knowledge on a subject. I empowered my children, they have unique memories and not mass hysterical ones created for them to fit into.

jaffacakesyum

For some reason I really really hate atheists who think they're better than everyone else, much more than I hate religious people who try to force their views on others.

5uspect

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I really don't have enough time to debate this as I have to prepare work for tomorrow, but I would like to because your points are good.

Science and Spirituality are by very definition different. You are correct - there is no personal opinion in Science, it is facts, stats and peer reviews. spirituality is personal feeling and emotion. But I also feel spirituality is : what happens after we die, and there have been scientific studies on this.

And this is where science is investigating spirituality.
There are many doctors investigating the NDE experience, and what happens to us after we die, and this is where science and spirituality cross. Anyway I must go, hope to link up with this discussion again!

Again you're conflating the scientific investigations into the mechanics of the meat in our heads to pseudo-scientific fluff about the notions such as the afterlife.

You've yet to provide any example of any such scientific study, yet you're sure they exist. There're certainly are plenty of pseudo-scientific studies into the afterlife, and none are published in the peer reviewed literature.

You don't seem to grasp the basic differences between the science of neurology and attempting to fit data, ad-hoc, to the wishy washy idea of an afterlife.

Also science doesn't deal in facts, you should know this, It deals in evidence.

Jev/N

gbee wrote: »

I brought my children up with no God, no Santa.

Recently we had a family reunion and the subject came up, my children said they felt superior to the others who believed and the teachers tried to make them lie, after that failed they asked them not to say anything.

My daughter admitted to having believed in the Tooth Fairy as I had not expressly included the Tooth Fairy as non existent.

We had an otherwise normal time, Christmas had both the Crib and Santa, they were not #banned# it was a bit of fun and a nice thing to do as wanted.

This is the problem.

You can term the preference to give your children religious education in line with your own beliefs 'child abuse' but the above is just as bad IMO.

The idea of a superior sense of oneself due to your beliefs, or lack thereof, is never admirable

midlandsmissus

5uspect wrote: »

Again you're conflating the scientific investigations into the mechanics of the meat in our heads to pseudo-scientific fluff about the notions such as the afterlife.

You've yet to provide any example of any such scientific study, yet you're sure they exist. There're certainly are plenty of pseudo-scientific studies into the afterlife, and none are published in the peer reviewed literature.

You don't seem to grasp the basic differences between the science of neurology and attempting to fit data, ad-hoc, to the wishy washy idea of an afterlife.

Also science doesn't deal in facts, you should know this, It deals in evidence.

Sigh, and here was me thinking this might be a non-arrogant person to talk to.

You seem to enjoy saying 'you should know this' alot. good for you.

Look I know about evidence in Science, we are all scientists here, even non - scientists know how scientific research is carried out, it is fairly widely known, I said fact as I was rushing off the post, as I do have another life outside Boards. i.e. preparing for work tomorrow.

If there's one thing I cant stand in a person it's arrogance, what is the need for it? A good skill to be able to learn is to be able to have a discussion with some-one, letting each others side come across without coming across as condescending and arrogant. A skill you appear to need to learn.

I am WELL aware that current scientific studies into the afterlife are not at a high quality level, have not been peer reviewed or accepted by the wider Scientific community.

But a start HAS been made into looking into the area. Science is always progressing into new areas is it not?

What do you think of Dr. Raymond Moody's life after death research?

gbee

Jev/N wrote: »

The idea of a superior sense of oneself due to your beliefs, or lack thereof, is never admirable

I've had this comment a few times today and TBH, I reject it out of hand now. It was what my Grown Up children told me as we had a family reunion recently and naturally the chat went to their childhood.

I was left in stitches as they descried the classroom, I had no idea at the time when they were smallies, I'm glad and they are delighted.

We are supposed to be unique, a child is a precious gift but it will latch onto everything you say or do and you [as a parent] will get punished by them if you get it wrong.

Grayson

there have been studies on near death experiences. And there were some on alien abduction. They found that the same reaction in the brain could cause experiences to both of them.

Think about it. Being drawn towards a bright light etc...


and here's a nice link I found
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15494379

I would like to point out that i have 15 science degrees, 10 masters and 7 PhD's.

And have provided a link to an article about a scientific study.

One of those statements is a lie and one is true and backs up my argument.

5uspect

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Sigh, and here was me thinking this might be a non-arrogant person to talk to.

You seem to enjoy saying 'you should know this' alot. good for you.

Look I know about evidence in Science, we are all scientists here, even non - scientists know how scientific research is carried out, it is fairly widely known, I said fact as I was rushing off the post, as I do have another life outside Boards. i.e. preparing for work tomorrow.

If there's one thing I cant stand in a person it's arrogance, what is the need for it? A good skill to be able to learn is to be able to have a discussion with some-one, letting each others side come across without coming across as condescending and arrogant. A skill you appear to need to learn.

I am WELL aware that current scientific studies into the afterlife are not at a high quality level, have not been peer reviewed or accepted by the wider Scientific community.

But a start HAS been made into looking into the area. Science is always progressing into new areas is it not?

What do you think of Dr. Raymond Moody's life after death research?

Arrogance? You're the one pointing to your science degree (a 1:1 no less), and now you're suddenly a Scientist! Forgive me if I point out your misunderstanding of what Science actually entails.

It's not that the studies are not at a high level; they're not even science! That's the point you continue to ignore.

They're nothing new either, there's plenty of them going back to the Victorian mediums.

9959

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Sigh, and here was me thinking this might be a non-arrogant person to talk to....
...What do you think of Dr. Raymond Moody's life after death research?

Not much, according to his own website, his best-selling book 'Life after Life' has sold over 10 million copies world wide, good luck to him, obviously there's good money to be made.

But here's the 'killer' (excuse the pun), his website also boasts - apologies for the scientific jargon, but here goes - "DR.MOODY HAS APPEARED THREE TIMES ON OPRAH", now how's that for a near-death experience!

Sarky

I see philolologos has already flown in, shot hot sticky Jebus-love all over the thread, and buggered off when actually challenged.

Like

F*cking.

Clockwork.

9959

Grayson wrote: »

there have been studies on near death experiences. And there were some on alien abduction. They found that the same reaction in the brain could cause experiences to both of them.

Think about it. Being drawn towards a bright light etc...


and here's a nice link I found
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15494379

...... I would like to point out that I have 15 science degrees, 10 masters and 7 PhD's.
.....

Fukc me, Larry with qualifications such as those, you should be on Oprah, three times.

twinytwo

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Yes my outlook has changed utterly with this realisation. I now understand that thunder and lightning is caused by the electrical build up in clouds being discharged toward earth as lightning (or somethin like that) rather than being caused by that big Australian surfer dude with the hammer in The Avengers. Ther Norse really dig him and his hammer.




Or do you have another god in mind?

for the record in simple english, it is the return stike from the ground to the sky that we see as lightning.

Sarky

Perhaps this beautiful slow-motion footage will clear up matters on lightning strikes?

Grayson

9959 wrote: »

Fukc me, Larry with qualifications such as those, you should be on Oprah, three times.

I am Oprah.

KNEEL BEFORE ME MORTALS!!!

Grayson

Sarky wrote: »

Perhaps this beautiful slow-motion footage will clear up matters on lightning strikes?

That is epicly cool.

Madam_X

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

For some reason I really really hate atheists who think they're better than everyone else, much more than I hate religious people who try to force their views on others.

Really? Jeez, arrogant atheists annoy me too, but give me one of them before a person who hates homosexuals, people of other faiths, etc.

midlandsmissus

5uspect wrote: »

Arrogance? You're the one pointing to your science degree (a 1:1 no less), and now you're suddenly a Scientist! Forgive me if I point out your misunderstanding of what Science actually entails.

It's not that the studies are not at a high level; they're not even science! That's the point you continue to ignore.

They're nothing new either, there's plenty of them going back to the Victorian mediums.

My statement of the fact that I have a 1.1 degree in Science was in response to some-one saying you have very little knowledge of Science.

Who wouldn't bring up then that they have a degree in Science. I notice you managed to overlook that part, coveniently. I didn't just say it out of nowhere.

Would you say that anything investigating the afterlife was science? No? Then how can we have any argument? You've made up your mind. What's the point in engaging in any conversation? Either you have an open mind to the possibility or what's the point in even having this discussion?

'That's not science'. Other people would disagree with you.

Dr. Moody, after hearing alot of patients report the NDE phenomenon realised there was a need for research in the area, and carried out his research on a sample of 150 patients. He then presented his findings.

I would call that within the acceptablies of Science.

5uspect

Madam_X wrote: »

Really? Jeez, arrogant atheists annoy me too, but give me one of them before a person who hates homosexuals, people of other faiths, etc.

http://xkcd.com/774/

midlandsmissus

Here is another case study.


Dr. Van Lommel and his team investigated NDE's on a sample of heart patients in Holland.





Dr Pim van Lommel and colleagues from the Rijnstate Hospital in Arnhem, Holland, investigated the experiences of 344 heart patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest.
All had been clinically dead at some point during their treatment, says a report in The Lancet today.
Sixty-two patients reported NDE, of whom 41 described a deep experience during a special state of consciousness. These included outofbody experiences, pleasant feelings, and seeing a tunnel, a light, deceased relatives, or a life review.
The researchers said: 'Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have NDE.
'If purely physiological factors caused NDE, most of our patients should have had this experience.'

keelanj69

token101 wrote: »

keelanj69 wrote: »

I dont have a degree. Guess I shouldnt comment :-(

Don't worry, it's nothing special. This thread has proven that thinking isn't for everyone.

I would like to add that I am studying for a degree in Economics. How many posts am I entitled to?

token101

gbee wrote: »

Totally irrelevant, ignorance requires a lack of knowledge on a subject. I empowered my children, they have unique memories and not mass hysterical ones created for them to fit into.

Sweet Jesus. You empowered your children by not giving them Santa? :pac: I'd love to hear a rational explanation for that!

token101

keelanj69 wrote: »

I would like to add that I am studying for a degree in Economics. How many posts am I entitled to?

As many as you like, just don't overthink it. It's the internet not an Illuminati meeting.

humbert

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Here is another case study.


Dr. Van Lommel and his team investigated NDE's on a sample of heart patients in Holland.

Dr Pim van Lommel and colleagues from the Rijnstate Hospital in Arnhem, Holland, investigated the experiences of 344 heart patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest.
All had been clinically dead at some point during their treatment, says a report in The Lancet today.
Sixty-two patients reported NDE, of whom 41 described a deep experience during a special state of consciousness. These included outofbody experiences, pleasant feelings, and seeing a tunnel, a light, deceased relatives, or a life review.
The researchers said: 'Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have NDE.
'If purely physiological factors caused NDE, most of our patients should have had this experience.'

What are you suggesting this study indicates? That science is investigating the afterlife?

9959

keelanj69 wrote: »

I would like to add that I am studying for a degree in Economics. How many posts am I entitled to?

You tell us. You're the one studying economics..

midlandsmissus

humbert wrote: »

What are you suggesting this study indicates? That science is investigating the afterlife?

Yes. Isn't that what I said? That science is starting to investigate the afterlife.

losthorizon

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

humbert

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Yes. Isn't that what I said? That science is starting to investigate the afterlife.

Yes but that study (or at least the summary) doesn't mention anything about spirituality or the afterlife. It seems simply to focus on the possible physiological and environmental causes for the hallucinations some people experience during cardiac arrest.

9959

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Here is another case study.


Dr. Van Lommel and his team....

Went to his website too, he only had a first year sale of 100,000 copies for his 2007 'Dutch' best seller 'Endless Consciousness' - should be the title of this thread - so obviously he's not half as smart as Dr.Moody, also disappointingly, he makes no claims to appearing on Oprah, not even one miserable appearance.

However, his latest 'Bodice Ripper', 'Consciousness Beyond Life' looks a bit pricey at $26.99, I think I'll wait for the TV dramatisation, a 12 part series starring Dr.Van Lommel and his chum Dr.Raymond Moody, who will play the parts of a couple of snake-oil salesmen selling books to superstitious old biddies who think astrology is beneath them, and any book about the 'afterlife' must be, well, really mysterious and scary.
After all, they are Doctors don't you know!

5uspect

midlandsmissus wrote: »

My statement of the fact that I have a 1.1 degree in Science was in response to some-one saying you have very little knowledge of Science.

Who wouldn't bring up then that they have a degree in Science. I notice you managed to overlook that part, coveniently. I didn't just say it out of nowhere.

Because you used it as an argument from authority. You still haven't demonstrated an understanding of science.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Would you say that anything investigating the afterlife was science? No? Then how can we have any argument? You've made up your mind. What's the point in engaging in any conversation? Either you have an open mind to the possibility or what's the point in even having this discussion?

'That's not science'. Other people would disagree with you.

Dr. Moody, after hearing alot of patients report the NDE phenomenon realised there was a need for research in the area, and carried out his research on a sample of 150 patients. He then presented his findings.

I would call that within the acceptablies of Science.

When you enter with the intention to prove the existence of something unfounded there are alarm bells. The Standard Model predicts the existence of many subatomic particles including the Higgs. So the LHC was built to test this. Nothing predicts an afterlife. Worthwhile research would be to understand the mechanisms involved in death, and consciousness. Not to posit an unfounded conclusion and go hunting for it.

Reamer Fanny

No I'm still using Outlook Express 2003

TeddyTedson

Someday I hope believers and non believers can get along.

I belong in neither category.

philologos

Firstly, thanks a lot for these comments, they really interested me and I hope to hear more from you all on this. I spent a bit over an hour thinking about how to respond to some of these. If I've missed any of your comments please PM me and I hope to deal with some more tomorrow.

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

I don't know how this example is proof that atheistic anything falls at the 'first hurdle'. You make a big assumption that this is black and white evidence of something

Without an objective basis for morality, morality starts becoming rather inexplicable very very quickly. If you're claiming that the objective basis for morality is something other than God, I'd be very interested in hearing you explain how it could work.

My point was very simply, without a common basis for morality, if someone wrongs you, you have no external reason to object to their behaviour. After all what's right to you, might be wrong to them. In order to explain how someone has genuinely wronged you, you require to explain ethical behaviour by an external means. If you are claiming that someone has wronged you, you mean that it is apparent that they have wronged you and that they should have known better. Otherwise why rebuke them? It would be a waste of breath.

When I see ethical issues like these unfold, I can only presume that the human condition is predisposed towards objective rather than subjective moral truth. Otherwise we wouldn't see this type of rebuke occurring.

Explaining how morality can work on a subjective basis is entirely difficult for an atheist. Even the ones which are based on evolution come into difficulty when we consider altruistic, self-sacrificial, and self-detrimental moral action. If we were truly living on a survival of the fittest ethical system, we'd work on the basis of whatever was expedient for us, even if that was to the detriment of other human beings.

I find the Biblical approach to right and wrong to be far more convincing than any other secular or atheistic explanation. While I was studying moral philosophy at university, this became more and more apparent to me. What objective grounding do any of these theories have from utilitarianism to moral subjectivism, and the answer is ultimately very little.

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

Lets take your sharpshooter example and say the sharpshooter says God told me to do it because he is feeling angry and judgemental again like he did in the Old Testament. Ye are not following his teachings so sharpshooting it is. He couldn't be arsed to muster up some loctus plagues so he sent me to prove his point. P.s I'm the second coming. This guy really 'believes' god told him.

What would your position be then? Is he going to hell?

We're told about God's nature consistently in Scripture, and as Christians we're told that Jesus is going to return to judge on the last day. Christians believe that there was an Old Covenant with the Jewish people, and through Christ we have received a new covenant agreement for both Jews and Gentiles. As a result of this covenant, we know that all have sinned and have fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23), and as a result Jesus came into the world to rescue us from God's wrath while we were yet sinners (1 Peter 1:18, Romans 5:8-9). Christians are told very clearly that God has extended this current age so that as many as possible can be saved and come to know Him in the final days (2 Peter 3:8-10). We are also told that if anyone preaches another Gospel, let them be accursed (Galatians 1:8).

So in short, Christians make decisions on the basis of God's revealed word to them. As of Jesus Christ, He has come to pay the penalty for sin. As a result how can I expect to take someones life in turn? Jesus will return to judge, and it is at this point that God's wrath will be upon those who reject Him and His standards. Post-Jesus, there will never be an expectation for me to impose God's wrath on anyone. After all I've sinned and fallen short of God's glory, and I've been rescued from sin and the wrath to come. What Christians are expected to do is proclaim the Gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:18-20) whether that is in Dublin, Beijing or Riyadh.

Let me know what your objections are to my answer and I'll try come back to you.

IvySlayer wrote: »

Regarding the Bible, you don't take it seriously as a moral guide, it's just the good bits you picked out. You just ignore the barbarism and edit it to suit yourself. And the Bible doesn't allow you to do that.

I bet Philogos eats lobster and pork even though the Bible says you can't. The bible isn't your moral guide, you have enough sense yourself to distinguish between good and bad.

Not at all. I read the Old Testament and the New Testament, the whole canon of Scripture. A few weeks ago on the Christianity forum we had a question about Christian attitudes to the Old Testament. The reality of the matter is that Christians have always from the beginning of Christianity read the Old Testament in light of what Jesus has done. Christians believe that Jesus has fulfilled (not abolished) the burden of the Old Testament law on our behalf. As a result we are under grace, free to live as we were created to be, that is the reflect the standards and the holiness of the God of Creation. I'll quote a bit from my response on that thread, you can follow it up and let me know what you think (this also deals with your section about dietary laws and the Christian position on them, which is a common misnomer used by skeptics):

All Scripture is useful (1 Timothy 3:15-16).

Christians however read the Old Testament while considering what Jesus has done in the new. The New Testament has implication for how we read the old.

For example dietary laws are discussed in Leviticus 11. Dietary laws were fulfilled by Jesus Christ in Mark 7. This doesn't mean we ignore Leviticus 11, rather we consider the role that Leviticus 11 had in marking the Jews as distinct from the Gentiles, and we can begin to think about how we as Christians are meant to be distinct from the world (see 1 Peter for a lengthy discussion on that).

Another example, animal sacrifices - Jesus is the all sufficient sacrifice for sin, therefore why would I need to offer a sacrifice? (Hebrews 10).

Another example - death penalty - If Jesus has shown me mercy by His death on the cross, how can I expect death from another person? (See Matthew 18 for a parable concerning this).

There are many many more. Simply put, it is by reading the New Testament that we understand what has been fulfilled. Even the Old Testament tells us of a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and even the Torah implies it when it speaks about the Messiah in Deuteronomy 18 (around vs 18).

Non-believers who argue in the way that you've described are ignoring the fact that this is how Christians have read the Bible from the beginning. Paul shows us this in 2 Corinthians chapter 3.

I can still learn plenty from reading Leviticus or Deuteronomy though, I learn about a gracious and a faithful God who led His people out of slavery into freedom, much as King Jesus led us out of the slavery of sin into freedom through Him. I think the Torah in many ways is exemplary even to Christians in terms of conduct. I think people who go fishing for things out of context are ignoring the broader picture of the Jewish law in the Old Testament. It shows mostly that people aren't bothered to actually read what the Bible says, but need cannonfodder for the debate

So yes, the Bible is my moral guide. I read it as a whole, and I read the Old Testament in consideration of what Jesus has done as every single Bible-believing Christian has before me.

Grayson wrote: »

There were three scientists in Ghostbusters.

For points 2,and 3 replace bible with koran and you're right. there's feck all evidence for what Jesus actually did. The only contemporary source to write about jesus was Josephus.

The Koran was written and codified shortly after mohammad died. they even went looking for hadith, stories about him and spent ages trying to verify them. If your looking for hostorical accuracy, you're in the wrong religion.

Firstly, there are other sources about Jesus Christ. We have Tacitus and Pliny the Younger referring to Jesus. We even have people who hated the Gospel writing about Jesus, for example in the Babylonian Talmud. There is a better case for Jesus than there is for many other people in history.

Secondly, the Qur'an is a poor example. We have New Testament texts from 15 years after Jesus' death by a convert to Christianity Paul. If we look to Paul's conversion account in Galatians we see that there was incredibly little time for the Gospel to have been contrived in the interim. What's even more interesting is if we look to Galatians, 1 Corinthians and other texts written by Paul and the Gospels which were written by others, we see elements of what was in the Gospel already written by Paul, meaning that Paul had received the same Gospel that was written by other Christian writers. Showing that there was a consistency in the Christian belief before Paul, and the Christian belief that is communicated in the Gospel accounts.

Thirdly, the Qur'an in respect to Jesus comes 600 years after his life. Why would one trust a text about Jesus' life that comes 600 years after Jesus actually living, as opposed to texts which were written by his contemporaries very shortly after his death?

Fourthly - We have the text of people who went to the Gentile world and risked their lives and in most cases were put to death for doing so. This isn't some expedient lie, and it certainly isn't one that was to their benefit. Why on earth would you go into the world to communicate a lie, with absolutely no benefit, in fact it was to their detriment to communicate the Gospel.

Fifthly, if the Bible contains specific details about Jesus, specific events, specific people, why didn't people in the first century seek them out and debunk the Gospel?

Sixthly and finally (there is much more I could say) if the New Testament is a cult text, why don't we see the accounts bigging up any of the apostles who actually led the first century church. Indeed, instead we find humiliating and in some ways embarrassing comments about their character while they were with Jesus (for example arguing over who was the greatest). If this was a cult text intended to bring glory to the apostles of the first century church (presuming the nonsensical idea that Jesus never existed), why was there so much mentioned about Jesus, and so less mentioned by the alleged 'cult leaders' who were going to run the show?

Your claim that the Qur'an has a similar case to the Bible needs to be demonstrated, it can't be assumed. By the by, one my interests as a Christian is in Islam considering it is rather prominent where I live. I'm looking to get more involved in Christian - Muslim dialogue in my area and to get to know a lot of Muslims better. I strongly disagree with their position, and like many atheists and agnostics I want to discuss it more and get into the nitty gritty of it.

Grayson wrote: »

For point 4, you're quoting one moral theory. There are loads more out there. ever hear of utilitarianism or virtue ethics? But I guess that's what happens when you get all your information about ethics, morals and athiests from a man in dress with a big hat.

I've already covered this above. Give what I've said a read and come back to me if you have any points or questions.

Oh, and by the by, I don't get anything from a man in a big hat.

Firstly, at the church I go to pastors don't wear vestments.

Secondly, I don't blindly trust what my pastor says, I look to see if what He has said is accurate from Scripture. If I ever found that he was teaching anything unbiblical I would ask him to show me where he found this in Scripture.

Thirdly as a result of the Protestant Reformation the emphasis is on God's inspired word rather than on the authority of select individuals. Anyone can read the Bible, and anyone can listen to what God is saying to them if they are willing.

Grayson wrote: »

Point 5, anyone wh's a confirmed athiest, agnostic, muslim, christian or scientologist can claim the same.

Sure they can claim the same, but what's important to look at is whether or not these claims have substance, or if there is any basis in reality for believing X rather than Y. Like most atheists and agnostics (I've also covered this below) I believe that there is objective reality in the universe and just because people believe in X, Y or Z it doesn't mean that it is true. I hold the same skepticism, I just come to a different conclusion on looking to the testimony.

frag420 wrote: »

So do you believers (philologos)believe in the all powerfull, all forgiving god that created the earth in seven days about 2000 yrs ago or do you believe in the god that lets half the worlds population live in poverty, allows his representatives on earth abuse children, allows earthquakes, tsunamis etc to kill hundreds of thousands of his children??

2,000 years was just after the time when Jesus lived. So no, I don't believe that the universe was created 2,000 years ago, and the Bible doesn't mention when the universe was created. The question is what is the Genesis account designed to do, essentially it is a description of God's power over creation. Structurally the passage is written in a poetic style in the Hebrew. In addition the word for day "yom" is used for longer time periods in other parts of the Hebrew scriptures. I've posted on this subject quite extensively in the past and you can find my reasoning behind Genesis chapter 1 here and here.

Secondly, I'm an evangelical Christian, I'm not a Roman Catholic. I believe that child abuse was a despicable evil done by man, there is no warrant in God's word for that behaviour, and I would strongly condemn it. As for why suffering occurs in this world, please see the section below:

frag420 wrote: »

It seams to me that this god of yours has some serious character flaws. And let's not get into the whole ' God works in mysterious ways' crap as there is nothing mysterious about being a prick and watching your so called children murder, rape, abuse each other as well as the home you gave them?? If he is real then surely it is about time he grew a pair of balls, manned the fook up and stepped in and stop all the horrible things happening?? Maybe start eith Africa??

Man who rejects God, and who causes much of this mess that you're talking about expects God to clean up their mess even when they treat the God of creation with scorn? This is absurd. By the by, there are several reasons why God mightn't intervene in creation, some of which I've walked through on this forum before. Let me quote some of them for you:

philologos wrote: »

As much as I don't like breaking Godwin's Law on the thread: I don't think God is responsible for the Holocaust either. This isn't even referring to omnipotence and free will any more, this is referring to why doesn't God prevent every bad thing from happening.

Firstly, I think it is surprising that people who refuse to even acknowledge God would presume that if He were to prevent every evil thing from happening that they would believe. I would assume that you would still be as much in opposition to Him, or that you would attribute it to something else other than God.

Secondly, I think that evil can have a purpose. Biblically we have the example of Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers. This was a bad thing. Ultimately at the end of the book of Genesis Joseph says the following to his brothers about his experience:

Genesis 50:18-21 wrote:

His brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones.”

Evil can ultimately be worked for good purposes. Joseph's brothers did evil towards him, yet it ultimately turned out to be good. In my own life I can see how God worked what was bad in my life for good. It is partially the reason I follow Jesus today.

Thirdly, it is also possible that God doesn't intervene in every case of what is evil in the same way that our parents don't follow us around everywhere to make sure that we aren't heavily drinking, taking recreational drugs etc.

Fourthly, I also believe that in our Christian lives, God can punish us for disobedience against Him much in the same way that a father punishes his children.

Fifthly, I also don't believe that God doesn't act at all in our universe. I believe that God has intervened in terms of evil. Indeed, He came into the world Himself to conquer sin and death on our behalf. I also believe that God intervened in the case of nations in the past, and I believe that God can and does intervene in the world today on much the same level.

It depends on the circumstances as to whether or not God intervenes in every situation.

frag420 wrote: »

Also very convenient of him to provide proof of his existence all those yrs ago. Funny how he doesnt provide proof or turn up now we have video cameras, Internet etc and not just writing it down on parchment as in the past? He is not the biggest fan of technology eh!!

By the by, objecting to Jesus for not magically reappearing for your own disposal in the current age is a little silly. It's the presumption that God owes you anything. Biblically, He doesn't. You're the one who has sinned before Him. He's not your puppet, your ATM machine or at your beck and call. Yet, God in His loving mercy through His Son Jesus came to know you. He doesn't owe anyone anything. He is Lord and He has revealed Himself to us even when we have treated Him with scorn and contempt.

By the by, I'm not convinced that people would even believe even if they had evidence. In the Bible there are cases of people who had become Jesus' disciples leaving Him because of His teaching despite seeing clear evidence. There were people who saw evidence and yet treated Jesus with contempt, so much contempt that they sent Him to the cross. Read John 5 - 8 for a snapshot of this.

I'm more than happy to walk through anything that I've said.

Madam_X wrote: »

If a person truly believes in a higher being, tries to abide by their religion's code (in the good sense obviously) and minds their own business about it, leave them be. I don't believe, but I did once and don't have mental deficiencies. So many people were raised with religion and it's how they make sense of the world - not everyone can just switch this off. There are many too who embrace the spiritual - again, whatever floats your boat once you don't impose it on others.

Philologos and others though, I think it is also a bit arrogant to stare definitively there is a god and you know it etc - you *believe* in god, that's all.

Thanks for your post. You remind me of so many people I meet who pretty much say to me that believing in God is OK for you, and if it comforts you or whatever, that's good for you, but it's not for me.

I find this to be a flawed mode of thought.

Firstly, it's on the basis of postmodern thought, namely that people can believe in A and NOT A and still have them both being true. The only area of agreement on this subject that I'll ever have with new-atheists is that I'm interested in truth. Namely there is something real irrespective of what people believe.

Secondly, this position that I hold isn't one of arrogance, or a pompous attitude. Christianity teaches me that I'm no better than any other person. Rather what it says is I'm in the same boat as everyone else. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Before I knew God I was spiritually dead, a son of disobedience, and I was walking in unrighteousness (Ephesians 2:1-2). It is through no special means of my own that I believe in Jesus. It is because He so loved the world that He sent Christ Jesus to die for me while yet a sinner (Romans 5:8-10, 1 Timothy 1:15, John 3:16-18).

What is so special about me? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I'm not deserving of God's mercy and it's not through any work of my own that I am justified before Him (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Let me put it this way for you. If God speaks into this world and has spoken since the very beginning of Creation, how is it arrogant to bring attention and glory to His words? If God sent His only Son Jesus into the world at a defined point in history to die for our sin so that we might be saved, is it arrogant to look back that and to bring attention to it? Not at all. I have no reason to boast in myself. I do have every reason to bring praise and honour to Jesus Christ though.

As a Christian, he tells me the following:

Mark 8:38 wrote:

For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.

This is extremely serious, and I need to obey Him. The reality of the matter is, we have eyewitness accounts of what Jesus said and did. If these words are true, they have serious implications for you and for me. It's not just a passing interest or a hobby, if these words are true they lead to eternal life. If the Gospel is true, then God's amazing love has been shown to you already through Jesus. Why should I not proclaim this?

If you feel that I've misinterpreted your post, I'm sorry, but this is how it looks like to me, and I've heard people say stuff like this to me time and time again. I'm just making it clear that it isn't really arrogance to say that God has spoken to all Creation. I'm not claiming that I have a private audience with God as Moses and other prophets did. All I'm saying is this is what God has revealed to man, and this is what happened on the cross.

Thanks for this opportunity, and I hope to look at some of your responses tomorrow if time permits.

Zillah

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

For some reason I really really hate atheists who think they're better than everyone else, much more than I hate religious people who try to force their views on others.

It is perfectly natural to hate someone who thinks they are smarter than you. It doesn't mean they are not smarter than you, though.

ejmaztec

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Someday I hope believers and non believers can get along.

I belong in neither category.

They should all head back to their respective fora and leave us to talk about important matters e.g. the effects of the recession on belly-button fluff.

SdoowSirhc

Zillah wrote: »

It is perfectly natural to hate someone who thinks they are smarter than you. It doesn't mean they are not smarter than you, though.

I think we all hate when people think they are smarter than us, I have to admit it does annoy me even when I know that they are smarter than me

I was dragged to mass today (I consider myself atheist) and there was a priest from a different parish covering the usual. He went on to tell the congregation that the pope was smarter than everybody there and everybody in the world, the Pope knows what we all need and what we should do. He then went on to tell us that the EU need to stop destroying and pushing away the church because the church should be running Europe. He said the same of the Ireland as a country and said families should stop watching TV and replace TV with the Rosary. All of this was sort of annoying but still it wasn't VERY bad.

He then started to preach the worst thing I have ever heard in a church: He told the mass goers that the sick and those suffering from chronic illness are so lucky to be blessed with the ministry of pain and suffering.

efb

Then God said to Noah there's gonna be a flood-y flood-y

Do people actually believe that cr@p???

ejmaztec

efb wrote: »

Then God said to Noah there's gonna be a flood-y flood-y

Do people actually believe that cr@p???

Well, Noah did or he wouldn't have built the feckin' Ark.

efb

ejmaztec wrote: »

Well, Noah did or he wouldn't have built the feckin' Ark.

and how many animals did he fit in it??? A long way to collect the kangaroos...

ejmaztec

efb wrote: »

and how many animals did he fit in it??? A long way to collect the kangaroos...

I don't think the Mediterranean tsunami reached Australia, so they were okay.