Whether you believe in religion or not

[sport_122]

And how do you feel about ex-Creationists and ministers who have realized that it's all a bunch of silly myths after clinging desperately to scripture for years? And trust me, I've been all through the "Evidence That Demands a Verdict Series" and other Josh McDowell writings, as well as wandering though a lot of Hal Lindsey's works. Plus scores of others.

They all fall apart when scrutinized at a truly intellectual level. They use a document to prove itself. You cannot do this - it is an inherently flawed method of proof. By applying the same type of logic anything becomes true because it proves itself.

If you want to believe something, that's fine, that's faith. But don't try to turn it into a scientific or historical study because it will fall apart quickly under the jaundiced gaze of rigirous academic scrutiny.

I don't have an opinion on ex-creationists because in the same manner there are ex atheist and non-theists becoming theist (not necessarily christians) every day just as well. Thom Rainer, Greg Bahnsen are examples, there are just as many going the other way. I don't know their reasons, I don't know who they are and where they are from so I cannot give account to them. Greg and Tom have publicized their belief and I think I share many views with them. They were both completely against the idea of God, because of the same things that many people have mentioned here. No suprise of course. But what changed them was that study along with the rationalizing of their own arguments began to fail. They both came to a place when they believed that if there is no God, then there is no reason (reasoning/rational thought).

Also, again, please take note, that I do not use scripture as a reason to believe and prove Gods existence. I don't believe the Bible is the proof. If that were the case then we would have a huge problem in our hands because there are millions of books out there. You are right, that does not work and I don't believe it to be grounds for any explanation in this kind of discussion.

The problem I have with the statement of the intellectual level, is in the fact that "intellectuals" (assuming we share the same definition) are changing views both ways. I would assume that you agree intellectuals exist on both sides. How do you feel about the intellectual who holds to their beliefs either one way or the other? Is one of them wrong? They can easily be me and you. Subjectivity would say "I am as intellectual as i say, not the SAT, GMAT, or LSAT etc.

I don't want to make statements on science or history, I don't believe either one of these topics will clarify anything in debate as you will see if you read some of my posts. My real arguments are only based on what I believe to be universal or eternal in existence. I only mentioned the science and historical nature of the bible in response to people claiming it was dreamed up. it most certainly was not, and many of the same people who write the history books that we use in our schools would agree. The Bible is full of historical information, letters, accounts, events. And again, I am not talking about the myths that people harp on. I'm talking about the old testament and its writing and how it syncs up with Jewish history. and the new testament and how it syncs with very accurate documentation from districts in Rome.

To say that the bible has not historical validation is to say that.

Kind David, Pharoah, Pontious Pilate, Moses, Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, Luke, Matthew, The Jews, The cities written within,the wars discussed etc etc etc, never happened. that is completely wrong. Find a historian and ask them if the Bible is used in study of historical events.

dont take my word for it. All it takes is for a few historians to use it for me to be correct. If none of them use it then I am wrong. The problem is that I already know non-theist historians who don't believe in the miraculous things, and don't believe in God and think religious choice is the workings of a chemical reaction in the brain, and still reference the Bible when doing study. I know because some of these people taught me.

[BABY J]

There are no first-person, contemprary, eye witness accounts of anything Jesus did. The gospels were all written in third person 30-40 years after the end of Jesus' ministry. We don't know who the authors really were. We've made educated assumptions in regards to their authorship. Given that none of the texts we have are in the author's hand, nor written in the first person, we have no real way of knowing anything about their authorship. None of them would be admissable as evidence of anything in any courtroom in the United States. Our flawed legal system has higher standards for credibility than Christianity does.

Most of the New Testament theology and doctrine comes from an egotistical man who claims to have had a miraculous conversion experience with no corroboration other than his own claims. Today we'd call that person a "nut case."

I think it's absolutely mind boggling that anyone would give credence to the mystical, superstitious, inconsistent, ignorant, thousands of years old writings of multiple authors over the peer reviewed, acredited, reality-based science of today. Makes no sense to me at all. And the only proof you have of your contrarian viewpoint is to say, 'I believe it.' Well, welcome to Heaven's Gate, or the People's Temple, or the Manson Family.

The Earth is not flat. It is not the center of the Universe. The stars and planets do not revolve around it. It is not carried on the back of a turtle, Atlas doesn't carry it on his shoulders, etc etc etc.

[BABY J]

Furthermore...

I find the idea that young earth creationists require that good, solid science be completely ignored and to instead believe in magic to be very insulting. To me, other believers should be offended by the suggestion.

Seriously, you guys are stuck in the Dark Ages.
* You either take the scientific stance that the age of the universe to be AT LEAST 13.9 billion years based on solid astrophysics and the amount of time it has taken light from the most distant objects we can see to reach Earth, or you believe in magic.
* You either take the scientific stance that the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years based on solid geophysics and the geological record, or you believe in magic.
* You either take the scientific stance that living organisms inherently improve their abilities to process available energy through proven natural evolutionary processes, or you believe in magic.

You can't expect people to take you seriously, to put any credibility in what you say, as long as you take such a ridiculous stance. Whether or not you believe "God" was responsible for these processes is up to you, but whether or not these processes exist is simply not open to debate unless you have some cult-like mentality that eschews the reality that you're surrounded by. And believe me, concepts like dinorsaurs with saddles on them are definitely cult-like in their ridiculousness to any rational human being.

Now, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.

[BABY J]

I'll finish by putting this on your plate --- you can eat it or not:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

"During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world."
- Albert Einstein, quoted in: 2000 Years of Disbelief, James Haught

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

(Note that several of us were lambasted for just the position voiced above earlier in this thread and others.)

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God. "
- Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

"Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. ..."
- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion (1941)

[sport_122]

Furthermore...

I find the idea that young earth creationists require that good, solid science be completely ignored and to instead believe in magic to be very insulting. To me, other believers should be offended by the suggestion.

Seriously, you guys are stuck in the Dark Ages.
* You either take the scientific stance that the age of the universe to be AT LEAST 13.9 billion years based on solid astrophysics and the amount of time it has taken light from the most distant objects we can see to reach Earth, or you believe in magic.
* You either take the scientific stance that the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years based on solid geophysics and the geological record, or you believe in magic.
* You either take the scientific stance that living organisms inherently improve their abilities to process available energy through proven natural evolutionary processes, or you believe in magic.

You can't expect people to take you seriously, to put any credibility in what you say, as long as you take such a ridiculous stance. Whether or not you believe "God" was responsible for these processes is up to you, but whether or not these processes exist is simply not open to debate unless you have some cult-like mentality that eschews the reality that you're surrounded by. And believe me, concepts like dinorsaurs with saddles on them are definitely cult-like in their ridiculousness to any rational human being.

Now, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.

I think I addressed this in my other response.

My views are that science and saddle back dinosaurs do not deliver any validity to our arguments unless you want to look at the origins of science and that it comes from the revelation of knowledge which is already in existence, but has yet to reveal. which again, denotes an eternal...

BTW...Im young but Im not a 16 year old kid.

*astrophysics: You should not assume that the model they used is 100% accurate. Astrophysicists will tell you that their model is based off of speculation and it is only used to gain an estimation. So there is NO certainty.

*4.5 billion year old earth. see above. Its the same thing. And you have not asked me how old I think the earth is. You have assumed that I fall into one of your categories.

*micro biology: Im not sure what you are trying to say here. I believe in adaptation, but I don't believe that the microbs that you see on a rock are going to turn into anything more. This is another one of those laws that are not rooted in good research but speculative analysis.

Now I think that your point is supposed to center around scientific proof. The things you listed are only proof in the incomplete nature of science. To except these things as fact it boils down to you excepting what someone else told you as truth and that is another form of faith. You cannot say that we have proof of the age of the earth or universe. We have speculation because no one can testify to it. And I know you realize that there are tons of non theist scientist (anthropologists) who reject evolution after field study. My point again is that you have only listed more things about science which I believe is a terrible way to try to explain the existence of God unless you want to talk about the origins. Science is as subjective as religion and choice. If you don't believe it ask a scientist.

[sport_122]

I'll finish by putting this on your plate --- you can eat it or not:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

"During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world."
- Albert Einstein, quoted in: 2000 Years of Disbelief, James Haught

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

(Note that several of us were lambasted for just the position voiced above earlier in this thread and others.)

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God. "
- Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

"Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. ..."
- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion (1941)

How about I quote people who are more current seeing as how you seem to thing I am calling upon the archaic.

"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)

"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum)

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)

"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)


This does nothing to get us anywhere in our discussion. Which is why I have said that science does not prove anything. What you and I are demonstrating is that science is as faith based as religion. Just as you cannot run a scientific study to prove the existence of God, you cannot do one the discredit it either. So how do you believe this to be the case. If the study exists please send it to me. So just like you take science for its word. When it is not totally legitimized on ANY topic, I take the very existence of eternal or universal things as evidence. I hope to God that cutting and pasting quotes from Einstein was not the rabbit.

For science to be an argument you have to have science that actually studies the topic in this context. You can't because its subjective. Just like this is not a good reason to believe it is not a good reason to disbelieve.

[stillaneon]

The Bible is a collection of literature. Why does this make a difference? Because to have several accounts from different sources in different regions, with historical support ads validity. You can look up historically and find other things about Jesus, about Paul, Peter, Pilate, prophets, moses, etc etc. They really existed and there is evidence in a lot of cases to support some of the things you will read, like the crucifixion of Jesus. This is very well supported through historical documents from numerous cultures. Even in the new testaments the authors put in specific things that talk about numerous witnesses or specific locations and times where at that time you could go to the place and say, who was here when?, and tell me what happened?

There are four books that have seperate descriptions of present (in that time) activity. The gospels. And even then, there is only one event that they all describe.

In debate you need to first establish a grounds for your argument. You need to establish whatever each individuals preconceptions are about the topic and then you need to establish the question. If you are going to understand anything about the Bible, you cannot look at it in cross section. You have to look at it in the totality of its contexts. This is why a christian and a person who doesn't really study the bible in its historical context will almost never agree. You enter into looking at it, as if it were a book of fables, when it is more grounded in documented history than it is "fairytale".

Totality of what. I said literature, not fairytale. It may be historically accurate, that doesn't make it the turth, the light or the way.

Also, If you believe the Bible to be just a collection of stories and not the inspired word of God, then in no way can you use that as a source because you don't even believe its valid. You cannot rightly make an argument to support a knowledge of something you don't even believe to be valid, that is a terrible way to make a point to a christian or anyone who has elaborately investigated the Bible and its cultures.

I can debate however I want. If the Bible wasn't as flawed as it was, then it wouldn't allow itself to be a scource of argument.

Maybe while "God" was inspiring people to write, he could've inspired them to leave less loopholes.

Stillaneon
You asked if at any point people agreed with Hitler...Yes, they did, and there are still some who do? do you think these people are representative of the christian church because they followed the beliefs of a mad man. History writes that Hitler had all sorts of mental problems.

Let me tell you about another guy that was killed for believeing he was amazing.

do you think that all people on this forum are speed demons, and drive like F&F movie characters because they drive the same types of cars as some of us. That is the path that is taken when all religions are grouped together and judged based on the actions of individuals. Are there a lot of individuals, yes, because there are thousands of years of history that involves religion.

I don't group Christians together nor to I group Muslims together. So that is a void argument, but I can tell you that Authorities do groupus with the F & F wannabes. It's called profiling, it happens. get over it.

We have a very very strong difference in definitions about what it means to be a Christian. I realize that there are a lot of posers out there. There are people who are "christian" by default, and much of the world thinks that America is a Christian nation, but I don't. So before anyone wants to bash being christian why don't you tell me what it means to be what i am?

Do we. I define a Christian as someone who believe Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior. Do you have another definition?
The only thing I can tell you about what it means to be you, is that you are someone who feels that because you know a little bit about what you hear on Sunday that you can step in the ring with people who have spent a lot of time realizing how flawed organized religion and the Christian faith is.

So why the wall of posts? The wall of posts lay down the foundation of my arguments. I am still waiting to hear (read) foundation laid down for yours. The difference between you and I so far is that I have lots of reason to come to my conclusions and my thoughts. All I have gotten is blanket statements, still. Statements that first said All religions, then an emphasis on the people, but its really not the people (to some) its the religion again, if this thought is grounded I am missing something, someone explain it to me with facts.

I've seen no reasoning so far. Just an extreme amount of text running in circles. You honestly don't have any kind of proof to support your cause, if you do, then you are a liar, because religion is based on faith. Blind faith on that.

So you said that I compared a legal system to God. The presence of law does not denote a legal system. But WITHOUT (that is not a comparison) a universal law there is no grounds for a legal system. You completely misquoted my statements about law. Because I believe the reason you cannot legally do what you want is because we are not judging what is write based off of a subjective moral code. For instance, speeding is not right whether you do it or not, and everyone can agree on that because their are posted speed signs to tell you so. If it were based on your personal code, then for you 55 could be fast, for me 75, for someone else 100. That is anarchy. Individuals deciding what their laws or rules should be on their own.

I understand what anarchy is. My point was, that even if religion wasn't present, there would still be a code of values set forth to the well-being of man-kind.

You want to say that without religion the world would be anarchy, but its weak-minded fools like you who dont have the common sense to realize whats right and wrong without a "greater power" funneling shit through a human medium.

On a real not, I spent two years assistant teaching at a high school. I would love to see you come into a classroom with 25 kids and tell them that their absolute authority is themselves. You would have no control over that class and they would run all over each other. The reason our world is so bad right now, is because so many people are abandoning what they should be doing based on their faiths. If they are abandoning their faiths for their own personal reasons then why attribute that to the religion itself? The Bible speaks negatively of these types of people, so how do you suppose their religion is the principle by which they are doing so much wrong?

I never once said christianity didn't have a hopeful set of values.

Again, It works for the weak-minded who can't make decisions based on right and wrong, who need reassurance that everything will be ok when their loved one's die.

Also, you obviously have NOT read everything that was in this thread. All of my posts have been in direct correlation with what someone else has posted. This is in reference to saying that I was getting off subject. The topic is a bad world = the absence of a good God. Love is a direct relation to this topic as for the christian, it is believe that God is love and that His love is demonstrated through provision of law and logic. Seems pretty relevant to me. Just b/c you don't like what my view is, doesn't mean you shouldn't try to understand it, which is what most of us on this thread are doing, and not flaming as mandated by the rules of this forum.

The topic of the thread is whether or not you believe in Religion. you have spent the majority of the time forcing way too much text down people's throats and (being hypocritical) not allowing for an opposing view. I am not flaming you for your belief. if you need it, more power to you, I am glad it helps.

Lastly, what you don't know about me is how I came to believe the things I believe. I have a degree in studies of religion. I have discussed things with everyone from atheists, to agnostics, to buddhists, christians (some of whom I don't agree with at all) and just about anyone else who wants to discuss things. For a weak minded person, I am willing to bet that I have spent MORE time investigating these things from different points of view than anyone else on this thread. If I see a christian on here, misrepresenting the foundations of their faith I would call them on it too. yeah, some people of faith are weak minded, no doubt about it, but not me.

I have to say that doesn't impress me a whole lot. You have come into this thread extremely close-minded. which is fine. I wouldn't expect much more from someone so die hard in the Christian-faith.

As a Christian I am pretty sure I have a better scope of what we should and should not believe. I know when to throw up a flag and say that does not represent the church, or that is not what the Bible says, or that is taken out of context. And it always amazes me how, people who claim to not like it, would act as if they know and understand it better than people who have been submerged in it. I ONLY understand other faiths and other beliefs and views because I have spent time investigating and discussing their foundations and their histories through questions and study with people who live these faiths. You have asked no questions of me, you have only assumed to understand the foundations of my arguments to support my points. That sounds a lot like the...umm, weak minded christians who have been mentioned before who don't have the ability to explain what their beliefs are and can only throw their hands up at the sign of a good debate. Believe me I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE. And it seems like you can't handle it. I appreciate the views of the people on hear. I don't agree with them and I think many of them are put together with little thought, and even though I will question their reasons and their methodology, I will still respect them. I expect the same.

You keep trying to wave this supposed research you have. You are right, I have asked no questions about you. Because the thread has nothing to do with you, it has to do with the topic at hand. Religion. For someone with a degree in a religious field, it would almost seem fitting for you to realize what a joke for you to be arguing for a religion, instead of your personal faith.

BTW, I would welcome sitting down with any of you in person and explaining what I believe because I know its not normal for people who believe in God to be able to explain WHY they believe. There is no "IT JUST IS" with me.

why, it won't make it any more true.

I'll leave you with this. Show me proof, and I don't mean the wind blows, babies are born, etc. I want concrete proof. Until you have it, you dont have any argument other than your own emotional experiences, made up books about spending time in heaven before you were revived, what you were force fed as a baby, or what someone told you as they were taking advantage of a weakened emotional state that you were in

[sport_122]

There are four books that have seperate descriptions of present (in that time) activity. The gospels. And even then, there is only one event that they all describe.
Totality of what. I said literature, not fairytale. It may be historically accurate, that doesn't make it the turth, the light or the way.

You need to read the context of what you are responding to. Because you basically just agreed with me in saying that the bible has historical value. That is NOT why I believe the Bible is truth. Those are two different things. I guess you don't understand that.

I can debate however I want. If the Bible wasn't as flawed as it was, then it wouldn't allow itself to be a scource of argument.

Maybe while "God" was inspiring people to write, he could've inspired them to leave less loopholes.

Same thing I said before. You can debate how you want. It just wastes your time responding on things out of context. BTW. There are TONS of historical documents that are sources of argument as well.

Do we. I define a Christian as someone who believe Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior. Do you have another definition?
The only thing I can tell you about what it means to be you, is that you are someone who feels that because you know a little bit about what you hear on Sunday that you can step in the ring with people who have spent a lot of time realizing how flawed organized religion and the Christian faith is.

I've seen no reasoning so far. Just an extreme amount of text running in circles. You honestly don't have any kind of proof to support your cause, if you do, then you are a liar, because religion is based on faith. Blind faith on that.

I understand what anarchy is. My point was, that even if religion wasn't present, there would still be a code of values set forth to the well-being of man-kind.

You want to say that without religion the world would be anarchy, but its weak-minded fools like you who dont have the common sense to realize whats right and wrong without a "greater power" funneling shit through a human medium.

Anyone can say they believe that Jesus is the savior. What does it mean? You are so intelligent that you can pull stuff about me and Sunday morning out of your butt, but you can't seem to even stay in context with the statements that you quote. You are typical. You are the kind of person who can only say...give me proof. The proof you ask for has nothing to do with anything you have talked about so far. Do you have the ability to use logic? do you have the ability to understand love? do you believe in anything eternal that is NOT religious? You are exactly right RELIGION IS BASED ON FAITH!!! I don't disagree with that one bit, so what are you arguing. Are you arguing against the belief in God. Because there are those who believe in God but aren't "religious". What is RELIGIOUS to you? You throw it around, but ALL you can reference it to is the few people you have come across. so if you define organized religion as flawed, what do you think is the alternative.

NOT ONE TIME have I said that the absence of religion would lead to anarchy. If so quote me on it. You can't because almost every argument you have made so far has been a response a misquoted and non contextual statements. You are interpreting my arguments because you ASSUME that you know what I mean, and you ASSUME that I am "every other religious person" that you have talked to or come across. You assumed and YOU ARE WRONG. And here is where you have done it yet again.

I never once said christianity didn't have a hopeful set of values.

Again, It works for the weak-minded who can't make decisions based on right and wrong, who need reassurance that everything will be ok when their loved one's die.

The topic of the thread is whether or not you believe in Religion. you have spent the majority of the time forcing way too much text down people's throats and (being hypocritical) not allowing for an opposing view. I am not flaming you for your belief. if you need it, more power to you, I am glad it helps.

I have to say that doesn't impress me a whole lot. You have come into this thread extremely close-minded. which is fine. I wouldn't expect much more from someone so die hard in the Christian-faith.

You keep trying to wave this supposed research you have. You are right, I have asked no questions about you. Because the thread has nothing to do with you, it has to do with the topic at hand. Religion. For someone with a degree in a religious field, it would almost seem fitting for you to realize what a joke for you to be arguing for a religion, instead of your personal faith.

So again, you prove that you have not read through this thread.

1. You say that you are not flaming anyone for their beliefs yet, people of religious faith are "weak minded". That's interesting because that seems like flaming to me.
2. The topic of this thread is NOT whether or not you believe in Religion. That's the title, not the topic. Go read the first post and stop assuming you know everything.
3. I am not arguing for any specific religion. I am arguing against the lack of proof, (paraphrased) that religion is responsible for all these problems which the OP said it was truth. I ask for proof. So is he weak minded because he has not given proof of his statements? Or is that okay because he has a similar view as you? I don't think he is weak minded. I think he has an opinion and it should have been stated as so, but he is entitled to believe what he wants. Its ONLY when someone wants to try to test the foundation of MY arguments that I WILL show that my arguments are just as grounded in faith as those who do not believe, or profess science as a 100% end all on everything. That is fundamentally and by definition wrong.
4. You don't make sense to me. You said I am arguing for religion and then you tell me to prove it? What the hell does that mean? Prove what, that religion exists? Prove that God exists? What? The existence of God has nothing to do with religion, because there are religions that DONT BELIEVE IN GOD!!!
5. Lastly, you say that I have come into this thread "close-minded". Wrong. All I'm asking is for proof of the statement, when I can show where sociologists, anthropologists, historians, archaeologists, criminologists, and many many other fields of social scientists will say that organized religion helps society. The problem is you seem like the kind of person who would just dismiss that too.

So what you have done is decided to go against the only person on this thread who is willing to take a "proof of his statements challenge", by showing you resource after resource that says people in this world who subscribe to a faith are less likely to get in trouble, less likely to break laws and more likely to live a fulfilled life (note that doesn't mean perfect or easy) Its true of prisoners who leave jail/prison, and its true of everyday citizens.

If I give you links you are not willing to say that I am NOT crazy or weak minded. So who is "close minded" one?


Pick one and email him/her...dont take my word for it! Ask them if the statements in the first thread are justified.
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/sociology/so..._religion.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...nd.html?cat=38

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...pg2.html?cat=9



Oh. Since you said this:

"I understand what anarchy is. My point was, that even if religion wasn't present, there would still be a code of values set forth to the well-being of man-kind."

That is EXACTLY my reason for believing in God. Not b/c of religion or what i have heard the "weak minded" people say (who I will agree ARE out there) but because there are those things that are not physical or reflex action and existing in all of life that do not have to be taught. Even before men formed societies we new certain things were good and certain things were bad. It is too great a circumstance that hundreds of nomads or wanders could come together and agree instinctively that murder, and stealing were wrong. Science cannot give account to this. This is a question of origin which NOTHING that is subjective can claim understanding of, and the concept is one that is undeniable in existence. Where do you think those things come from?

[RL...]

sport, religion is based on faith, blind faith because there is no REAL PROOF. That's why they call it faith..

[sport_122]

sport, religion is based on faith, blind faith because there is no REAL PROOF. That's why they call it faith..

I agree. I just posted this BTW. I 100% agree with this statement. Nobody can prove their religion is right. There are too many religions and too many sects of religions and its all based on personal experience. Even within a single faith, there are divisions of beliefs and interpretation. I firmly agree.