Religious Beliefs

[An-Alteran]

No, but you can say that an otherwise moral person can justify horrible crimes to him/herself using religion that he/she otherwise wouldn't have been able to.

And racists can justify their beliefs by pointing to Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest, or can justify evil acts by appealing to the logical lack of morality in a non-absolute ethical system- IE: "There is no God, or absolute authority, so as long as I can do so, I can kill whomever I want."

Of course there are horrible atheists too, but atheism can't turn a 'good' person 'bad' the way that religion can.

You are saying religion can? How can religion do that if another belief can not?
Are not people the actuators of such evil?

Personally I think people should do the right thing because it's right,

What is right?

not because they think they'll be rewarded in heaven if they do or punished in hell if they don't...

This is a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine.

What do you mean atheists couldn't turn a "bad" person "good"? Maybe the person was stressed because they thought they were going to eternal damnation in Hell. The revelation that there is no Hell might change their life for the better.

Or it could lead them to believe they can do whatever they want regardless of whether others think it is right or wrong.

What is your point?

And many psychiatrists and councilors are atheists; I know several. They certainly help "bad" people become "good".

They do as people. Their atheism can not be blamed for good intentions and good actions.

On the other hand a religious system like Christianity can be blamed for good actions because it specifically ordains and commands good to be done- feed the needy, clothe the poor, provide for the sick, ect.

buddhism also stresses this

Which is ammusing at best.
What makes right, well, right?

The US is secular, there is no official religion.

Indeed. I think he meant that most in the US claim to be Christians. They are not, but that is another issue.

[s09119]

Answer in quotes:

And racists can justify their beliefs by pointing to Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest, or can justify evil acts by appealing to the logical lack of morality in a non-absolute ethical system- IE: "There is no God, or absolute authority, so as long as I can do so, I can kill whomever I want."

Yes, and yet atheists obey laws, don't we

You are saying religion can? How can religion do that if another belief can not?
Are not people the actuators of such evil?

People use religion as a means to twist people's perceptions. And since religious people will cling to their faith above all else, they'll do exactly as the puppetmaster wants.

This is a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine.

No, it's a point of view. That "doctrine" has been interpreted hundreds of ways, as evidenced by the many denominations of Christianity... see! You can't even all agree on a way to worship ONE kind of God, let alone the thousands out there.

Or it could lead them to believe they can do whatever they want regardless of whether others think it is right or wrong.

Again, atheists don't behave like that...

They do as people. Their atheism can not be blamed for good intentions and good actions.

Sure it can. Religion can be twisted and encourage (ancient relic) things like racism and sexism, and most religions (including Christianity) do in their holy texts.

On the other hand a religious system like Christianity can be blamed for good actions because it specifically ordains and commands good to be done- feed the needy, clothe the poor, provide for the sick, ect.

Any organization can ordain and command its followers to do things.

Which is ammusing at best.
What makes right, well, right?

Moral codes that develop in almsot all nations regardless of religion being a factor or not.

Indeed. I think he meant that most in the US claim to be Christians. They are not, but that is another issue.

That actually made me crack a grin.

[LostCityGuardian]

Well, look at the flip side. Atheism can't turn a bad person good the way religion could. Also, chances are that if a person does bad in the name of religion, they've always been bad. It's very rare that you'd have a 'good' person who turns 'bad' because of religion. If that happens, its more likely that the person wasn't all good to begin with. Especially here in the U.S. where the official religon is Christianity.

It's not the fact that a bad person joins a religion that redeems them. Its the fact that most major religions have as a component ethical standards, and the adoption and internalisation of these is what can change a person from bad to good. Certainly, I for one am an atheist, but I had a Catholic upbringing. I believe in most of the ethical concepts which Catholicism encourages. I would say therefore that atheism or religion is not what is going to turn a bad person good, it is the adoption of proper ethical/moral standards (at least as society defines these) that will accomplish this. Because ethics are a separate concept to religion, one could remain an atheist but change one's ethical beliefs and turn from "bad" to "good". Certainly religion has a part to play in this for some people (eg reformed murderers in prison) but it is not a prerequisite.

[Silverwings]

Answering the OP,
No, it wouldn't bother me or alter my religious beliefs. Yes, I could do my job just fine, thanks... but I'd wish I was working for the 'Gate program.

[SoulReaver]

Which is ammusing at best.

how so ?

[Ltcolshepjumper]

Answer in quotes:

And racists can justify their beliefs by pointing to Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest, or can justify evil acts by appealing to the logical lack of morality in a non-absolute ethical system- IE: "There is no God, or absolute authority, so as long as I can do so, I can kill whomever I want."

Yes, and yet atheists obey laws, don't we

You are saying religion can? How can religion do that if another belief can not?
Are not people the actuators of such evil?

People use religion as a means to twist people's perceptions. And since religious people will cling to their faith above all else, they'll do exactly as the puppetmaster wants.

This is a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine.

No, it's a point of view. That "doctrine" has been interpreted hundreds of ways, as evidenced by the many denominations of Christianity... see! You can't even all agree on a way to worship ONE kind of God, let alone the thousands out there.
Or it could lead them to believe they can do whatever they want regardless of whether others think it is right or wrong.

Again, atheists don't behave like that...

They do as people. Their atheism can not be blamed for good intentions and good actions.

Sure it can. Religion can be twisted and encourage (ancient relic) things like racism and sexism, and most religions (including Christianity) do in their holy texts.

On the other hand a religious system like Christianity can be blamed for good actions because it specifically ordains and commands good to be done- feed the needy, clothe the poor, provide for the sick, ect.

Any organization can ordain and command its followers to do things.

Which is ammusing at best.
What makes right, well, right?

Moral codes that develop in almsot all nations regardless of religion being a factor or not.

Indeed. I think he meant that most in the US claim to be Christians. They are not, but that is another issue.

Look. You can't look at Christianity from an outside perspective, especially on the individual level. Prove that religion merely twists people's perceptions. What you are saying is that every religion is started and/or used by people solely to take advantage of other people. May I remind you that people do not die for what they know to be false. And the issue with many denominations may stem from different interpretations of things, but all denominations agree on point of Christian doctrine. either way, christianity is NOT about trying to get into heaven or to escape hell. Those people who do that are not Christians for the right reasons (which, I would assume you'd know nothing about). As well, Christianity does not encourage racism or sexism. What is does is merely set the standard for the family, first, and then the church (which also, you'd probably know nothing about). Atheism does not have any bearing on whether one is good or evil. That is absurd to think so. However, a certain religion can be responsible for the good actions of a person. And you know that is true. It doesn't mean its the only cause of good actions, but religion is not a negative thing people should avoid. The point is, neither one is completely 'good' or completely 'bad', because human nature is overly bad (this is evident by the large percentage of crime in the world). However, if a religion merely stresses the good sides of society, and then some, why is it bad? The actions of a few cannot represent the actions of the whole. Because based on your argument about the crusades, I could say that Atheism will once against result in dictatorship, genocide, and nazism. But that would be overgeneralization. I sense, however, that the reason religion turns you off is because 1, you really don't know everything behind it (I'm referring only to Christianity at the moment); 2, you have shut your mind to the possibility of a God, and 3, and I'm going out on a limb here, you really don't like the theology that the good things you do in life are worth nothing.

[s09119]

Look. You can't look at Christianity from an outside perspective, especially on the individual level. Prove that religion merely twists people's perceptions. What you are saying is that every religion is started and/or used by people solely to take advantage of other people. May I remind you that people do not die for what they know to be false. And the issue with many denominations may stem from different interpretations of things, but all denominations agree on point of Christian doctrine. either way, christianity is NOT about trying to get into heaven or to escape hell. Those people who do that are not Christians for the right reasons (which, I would assume you'd know nothing about). As well, Christianity does not encourage racism or sexism. What is does is merely set the standard for the family, first, and then the church (which also, you'd probably know nothing about). Atheism does not have any bearing on whether one is good or evil. That is absurd to think so. However, a certain religion can be responsible for the good actions of a person. And you know that is true. It doesn't mean its the only cause of good actions, but religion is not a negative thing people should avoid. The point is, neither one is completely 'good' or completely 'bad', because human nature is overly bad (this is evident by the large percentage of crime in the world). However, if a religion merely stresses the good sides of society, and then some, why is it bad? The actions of a few cannot represent the actions of the whole. Because based on your argument about the crusades, I could say that Atheism will once against result in dictatorship, genocide, and nazism. But that would be overgeneralization. I sense, however, that the reason religion turns you off is because 1, you really don't know everything behind it (I'm referring only to Christianity at the moment); 2, you have shut your mind to the possibility of a God, and 3, and I'm going out on a limb here, you really don't like the theology that the good things you do in life are worth nothing.

1. I know a Hell of a lot about the Church considering my parents tried to shove religion down my throat. And since I've come to hate it so much, I probably do know more about it than you.

2. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there's a God if someone can provide enough credible evidence that doesn't depend on magic.

3. Any God that would punish those that spend their lives doing good deeds doesn't deserve my worship, in my opinion.

4. Read the whole Bible sometimes. There are many passages encouraging; racism, sexism, slavery, massacring of those who work on the Sabaath day (you know, 90% of the Western world), etc. I'd be happy to go find videos on it or quotes if you'd like, or someone else can.

5. Seriously, look at your own faith and the others on Earth. They stress a LOT more than just "good will".

6. Atheism may not have a bearing on whether you're good or evil, but it certainly does give you an untainted view of the universe, for good or bad, and that's well worth it in my opinion. ESPECIALLY considering that religion doesn't necessarily make you a good person, either.

7. My argument as to why religion is bad extends from just the Crusades; think of the Inquisition, indulgences, the mere fact that the Church is one of the richest and most-bloated organizations in the world, and gladly traded morality for wealth many, many times in the past.

8. Many religious people merely convert to try and cheat death when they get older. It's a fact of life, sorry.

[An-Alteran]

I belive Evolution is real. Humans evolved from apes over millions of years (we have all seen the drawing).

That is not true. Those drawing are exceedingly misleadaing and innaccurate.
Several of the postures the creatures are in intentionally more upright inspite of the fact that such postures would harm them.

The physical depiction is extremely innacurate and subjectively speculative.

Fossil records show the stages of huamn evolution from very near human great apes and even the split in evolution between Humans and neanderthals.

No it doesn't.
It shows nothing of the sort.

We see homo erectus, who looked very human like, then austrilopithicus (spelling?) which was an Ape and did not stand upright acording to more detailed analysis of the fossiles,

Even Human genetics can unlock the keys to are evolutinary past. E.G. as a young fetus the human child almost relives this stage, at one point growing gills and at another fur!

This is a myth.

The only partially correct statement is that it has gill-looking structures... but these are just the early spinal form.

The embryo never goes through this myth.

Fianlly geological records show that the Earth took dillions of years to form and for life to grow on it.

Not true.

Assuming an old earth, and accepting the more commonly believed models of the early earth, life had no chance of forming on Earth whatsoever.
Not even a protein has the chance of forming randomly.
Amino acids can't even form randomly for all intents and purposes... at least not the ones needed for proteins- IE: all left handed (technical term, not sure what it means myself)... amino acids always form in equal amounts of right handed and left handed varieties.

This prevents protein formation even if the process is highly manipulated.

The pieces have to be guided together.

A protein, let alone a cell, has no more chance of forming from random processes than my bycicle.

In fact... it is more likely that metal would melt and form into the shape of my bycicle, and rubber would coalesce around metal spoked formed by random geological upheavels, than dozens of left handed amino acids lining up and reacting and then folding into a protein... let alone one capable of acting as a art of a cell.

Don't forget then that the early earth's believed encironment was very toxic and dangerous and would break down amino acids and proteins anyway.
Not that any could form from random processes to begin with.

Amino acids might (I stress might) be able to form randomly... this is remotely possible... but in such small and insignificant quantities, and in such as way as to make forming a protein immpossible anyway.

We can even see planets being formed in the galaxie to back it up.

That is not true. The only planets we have seen outside our solar system are already formed gas-giants.

Stargate Rocks!

This we can agree on.

Why would he create all that, WAY more than we could ever, ever, ever see, just for us to marvel at? Especially when we can only marvel at about .00000001% of the universe (more than likely way less, even)?

Because he likes to create things?

sorry but Neaderthals are NOT fake! i am sure somewhere on google their is a page stataing that they are fake but that is just the nature of the internet. Neaderthals have been found, dug up and studied for years. how can that be fake? Are wolly mammoths and t-rex also fake?

He meant the so called "record" that is publicly presented is a fake.

Neanderthals existed... I would hypothesize they were likely much like us- and almost indisdinguishable in both behaviour and anatomy, once skin and flesh is on the bones.

As for the universe being a perfect combination inwhich everything works togther perfectly.

Well 1. it don't work perfectly. there arr many elemenst in the universe that are still as chaotic and thrown apart i.e. black holes, the chaotic cicles of the sun and stars, and uneven planetary orbits aswell as others i would not understand (dark matter).

We don't know enough about black holes to understand what effect they have on the universe.

FYI: A blackhole could very well be what holds this galaxy together... an important and vital role, no?

As for Humans having emotions, Yes it did happen by evolution.

Assumption.

as the human evolved getting a bigger and smarter brain

Brain size has very little to do with intelligence.
Brain structure does.

We have an entirely different brain structure than animals.

Women have smaller brains then men, yet are just as intelligent and both men and women think in different ways and have somewhat different brain structures yet are equally emotional and, well, human.

Humans vary in brain size by upwards of 120% without having any intellectual distinquishing features.

it allowed use to start to understand the world around use and communicate and interact with ecah other on a level most aniamls cannot.

On a level no animals can/

We are in an entirely different league.

Emotions are just a complex level of Human interaction and communication gained by having a larger brain and more complex socal system.

Again brain size=largely irrelivent.

I would reverse the other statement also:

More complex socal systems are based on the fact that humans opperate in an entirely different way than enimals and this includes deep emotions.

However in truth nether is good nor evil as the concept has no true impact on the universe itself and is nothing more than an idea within are minds.

Then, logically, there is nothing wrong with raping someone is there?

I use these extreme examples to test logic, not to accuse anyone of being rapists or rape supporters! That itself would be a logic fallacy. I am making a point.

Too bad homosexuality as a sexual orientation does exist in the animal kingdom.

Demonstrate this.

You still have not presented a single reliable source that states that homosexuality has been determined in any study or experiment to be a choice.

It is not a n"on" "off" switch kind of choice.

It is a behavioral pattern developed early in life-possibly having some influence by a predispostion to act in that manner.

The fact that there are identical twins where one practices homosexuality and the other is not shows that, at least in those cases, it is not genetic.

Carbon-14 dating is very reliable, and has been for some time now. We can date anything that has carbon based on the number of half-lifes that have occured in it, and since most everything organic (or once was organic, and a lot that wasn't, ever) has carbon, it can work on just about anything.

Carbom-14 has a half life of about 5,700 years.

The oldest any readiocarbon dating method can be said to test at is around 70,000 years ago.

And define reliable.

We can reliably determine how much of one substance vs. how much of its byproduct is in a given source.

Whether or not that actually tells us the age of the source is an entirely different matter.

All Radiometric dating methods have similar warrants.

Now, the Earth is far older than a few million years. We know just just by simple logic. Look at how long it takes for a single centimeter of rock to pile up on a cliff-face.

Assuming no catastrophic events like floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, impacts from stellar debris, and other massive events that could lay down large amounts of dirt in a relatively short period of time.

There are many problems with this method of looking at the earth.

Then go count the number of centimeters of rock that stretch down the cliff, say in the Grand Canyon. The number you'll get is going to be pretty D*MN big.

Be aware, I am not a Young Earth Creationist, I am not an Evolutionsist, I am not an old Earth Creationist, I am currently nutral because I am questioning those aspects of my faith and am trying to discern the truth. So I am not arguing for the Young Earth view, but I do have issues with radiometric dating, and rock layer dating that have never been satisfactorally answered.

The earth was believed to be very old already long before radiometric dating became available.

When radiometric dating systems were invented, that belief in an old earth colored the method from the get go. The assumption was already made that the earth was old, therefore the radiometric method shows that in the literature.

Now, my issues with that are these:

How do we know that the source material was not contaminated with elements of "byproduct" material?

What I mean is this: a radiometric date is established by measuring how much material is present of the mother material, maybe uranium, and how much of the produc, lead.

Two main issues are:
How do they determine that the two were not mixed to begin with, coloring the dates and making it look far older with the mathematical model than it actually is?

How do they know the half-lives are constant and can not be altered?
Half-lives of a substance can be altered in experiments, why can't this have occured in the past?

For the rocks in areas like the grand canyon:
Massive events like floods and other massive events can layer things down rapidly.
What do we see when we look at perfectly preserved layered areas like the canyon?
We see sedimentary rocks layered in layers with very apparent and sudden divides between them. There is no weathering between each layer, or massive amounts of vegitation that would be expected.

What do many christians assert? That a massive flood covered the earth as massive geological upheavels caused the water to burst out over the land, and cover the earth, causing mountains to suddenly rise (IE: everest was not always that tall, it violently was forced up as the earth renched itself apart durring the massive ecological and gelogical events causing, and eventually reversing the immediate effects of the flood-this also easily explains the molusc- and fish fossiles often found on mountains-and why sea limestone is often found on mountains), and valleys to sink deeper down- and that this torrential flood layered the many layers down rapidly, with many dead animals and dead plants being caught in the fray.

What happens when a smaller flood occurs? On a much smaller scale, layers of dirt and rocks pile up in, well, layers. Then the floods receed.
This is why early humanity settled near rivers that flooded. The floods would put layers of nutrient rich soil onto the land to grow plants on.

What is more is that there is enough water for this all to occur- if all the land on the earth was entirely flattened out, the earth would be covered by water as high as 1+ miles into the sky. Even with all the valleys and deeps and mountains of the earth, water still covers 70% of it.

And, at least according to the Bible, the water only reached a few meters above the highest mountains of the time (again, the violent events that would be likely to have caused such a flood and then caused the water to receed would have likely forces mountains higher, and sunk valleys and trenches deeper).

So there are valid arguments on both sides.

And there are rebuttels and explanations to many points I listed above.
And there are rebuttels to those rebuttels.
And refutations of those rebuttels, and rebuttels of those refutations.

[An-Alteran]

What this all boils down to is:

I believe Christianity fits the evidence and the world most accurately.
I believe Christianity is true because the evidence points to its validity moreso than away.

I don't hold to these beliefs on some notion of blind faith, but adhere to the Greek word "pistis" translated faith, meaning: 'A full trusting reliance on someone or something based on clear evidence and trustworthiness'.
My trust in God is based on the evidence from nature which appears so clearly to me as a testament to God that to deny Him would be to dishonestly self-decieve myself. And based on the evidentce apparent in His revelations in the scripture.

how so ?

They assume an absolute right, without basing it on anything.

Yes, and yet atheists obey laws, don't we

No atheists break laws?

And you are dodging the question.

You are using special pleading.

You are making atheism out to be perfect and incapable of wrong with very questionable arguments and dubias assertions.
And then using strict and unwavering language on how religion is bad and causes bad.

Either apply the same standards to both, or please just end the debate.

People use religion as a means to twist people's perceptions. And since religious people will cling to their faith above all else, they'll do exactly as the puppetmaster wants.

That can happen in any form of organization.

Government, Family, School, Military, ect.

Youare special pleading. You are applying a standard to religion that is not exclussive to religion.

And what you addressed above is specifically why I and most Christians believe in sola scriptura- scripture alone.

And that there should be no pope, no sole human as an authority.

Unfortunately humans are prone to establish humans they agree with as such authorities. This happens in any system, organization, or group of human beings. It is inevitable under any belief system-atheism included. You are being hypocritical and dishonest to apply these arguments solely to religious beliefs.

No, it's a point of view.

An invalid point of view.

That "doctrine" has been interpreted hundreds of ways, as evidenced by the many denominations of Christianity...

Most denominations are split over non-essential issues.

There are many principles that one should use when interpreting any text-especially the Bible.

Very few people follow these rules.
This is called "exegesis".
Reading something the light of what the person is trying to say,

Most interpretations are "eisegesis."
Reading into something a belief that you already hold.

[qote]see! You can't even all agree on a way to worship ONE kind of God, let alone the thousands out there.[/quote]
This is simply inaccurate.

Disagreements like those that exist between most denominations are in fact contradictory to scripture!
We are told not to divide over petty disagreements,
or even more serious ones.

We are told to correct and love.

On the other hand, in spite of disagreements on doctrine and theology, the vast majority of Christians view disagreeing brothers... as, well, brothers.

Again, atheists don't behave like that...

That is simply silly. You are aware of what all atheists do and don't do? On what all atheists do and don't believe?

Stalin was an atheist my friend.
He went to a Christian school when young and renounced it all.

Sure it can.

I thought atheism was simply a disbelief in God, how can it be blamed for good behaviour?

Religion can be twisted and encourage (ancient relic) things like racism and sexism, and most religions (including Christianity) do in their holy texts.

At least it takes twisting to do that to Christianity.

Darwinian evolution at its core is easily interpreted as being a justification for racism. "One race can be more evolved than the other".

Racism can not be supported rationally using Christianity.

People have supported their racism with christianity, but again: rationally.

Jesus treated everyone equally and Christians are ordered not to be prideful or condemn people based on hypocritical standards.

Early Christianity united people because of these beliefs: there is no jew or gentile, slave or free, male or female.

This led to the first true multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-gender belief system ever.

It wasn't until hundreds of years later that the Greek and Roman philosophies reasserted bigoted views towards women, other races, and began justifying slavery.

Any organization can ordain and command its followers to do things.

Ok.

Moral codes that develop in almsot all nations regardless of religion being a factor or not.

They often contradict.

That actually made me crack a grin.

Good.

1. I know a Hell of a lot about the Church considering my parents tried to shove religion down my throat.

So you don't like religion, and know about it because your parents were jerks about it?

The actions of one group of people does not speak to the whole or the validity of an entire belief system.

Because Communism is atheistic does not mean Atheism is inately bad because some adherents are bad.

Nor does the poor example of 'said' Christians make Christianity wrong.

And since I've come to hate it so much,

Thank you for admitting your bias.

You hate religion. This clears things up.

I do not hate atheists, or atheism.

I love God and the truth and vigorously disagree with you all,
but I don't hate you or your beliefs,

I probably do know more about it than you.

This statement is very dubias.

Any God that would punish those that spend their lives doing good deeds doesn't deserve my worship, in my opinion.

Define good.

Read the whole Bible sometimes.

I have.

There are many passages encouraging; racism, sexism, slavery, massacring of those who work on the Sabaath day (you know, 90% of the Western world), etc. I'd be happy to go find videos on it or quotes if you'd like, or someone else can.

There is no racism or sexism encouraged in the Bible.

Slavery in the ancient world when the Bible was written was entirely different than now and often mutual.
And the Bible doesn't condone it, it allows it and highly regulates it to a degree entirely unseen in other cultures of the day.

As for the Sabaath day, that is true. But innacurate.

People didn't break the Sabaath.
Why would you not want a day off every week?

And In the New Testament, the New Covenent Dissolves many of the Ceremonial rules- including that one.

Seriously, look at your own faith and the others on Earth. They stress a LOT more than just "good will".

Such as?

Atheism may not have a bearing on whether you're good or evil, but it certainly does give you an untainted view of the universe,

Wrong.
Atheism: Belief that there is no God.
This is an assumption at its core that is unprovable.
And is thus certainly "tainted".

for good or bad, and that's well worth it in my opinion. ESPECIALLY considering that religion doesn't necessarily make you a good person, either.

First: Define good. I thought "Atheism may not have a bearing on whether you're good or evil"?
If you are an atheist, how then do you have a bearing on good and evil?

Ironically, Christianity explains this if you assume an absolute good:
Humanity is evil, there is not one person who is perfect or can do good universally- no not one.

This is consistent.

My argument as to why religion is bad extends from just the Crusades;

That is an argument that Islamic religion is bad, and that humans are evil.

I have a fealing your views on the crusades are highly flawed at best.

I would like to debate the inquisition and the crusades with you in Personal Messages. Please don't respond to this.

They are complex and deep subjects- and can't be addrest easily in this forum- because there are so many other things to talk about also.

think of the Inquisition,

I would like to debate the inquisition and the crusades with you in Personal Messages. Please don't respond to this.

They are complex and deep subjects- and can't be addrest easily in this forum- because there are so many other things to talk about also.

indulgences, the mere fact that the Church is one of the richest and most-bloated organizations in the world, and gladly traded morality for wealth many, many times in the past.

I would like to discuss this with you in PM also.

Many religious people merely convert to try and cheat death when they get older. It's a fact of life, sorry.

Some do.

But the Bible is clear that you must truly trust in God.
If your motives are not right... you don't get a get-out-of-jail-free-card.

Jesus condemned people for exactly saying that they will "believe when they are older" or "after they have done things they want to do".

You must follow Jesus, or not do so. You can't have it both ways.

[Ltcolshepjumper]

1. I know a Hell of a lot about the Church considering my parents tried to shove religion down my throat. And since I've come to hate it so much, I probably do know more about it than you.

2. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there's a God if someone can provide enough credible evidence that doesn't depend on magic.

3. Any God that would punish those that spend their lives doing good deeds doesn't deserve my worship, in my opinion.

4. Read the whole Bible sometimes. There are many passages encouraging; racism, sexism, slavery, massacring of those who work on the Sabaath day (you know, 90% of the Western world), etc. I'd be happy to go find videos on it or quotes if you'd like, or someone else can.

5. Seriously, look at your own faith and the others on Earth. They stress a LOT more than just "good will".

6. Atheism may not have a bearing on whether you're good or evil, but it certainly does give you an untainted view of the universe, for good or bad, and that's well worth it in my opinion. ESPECIALLY considering that religion doesn't necessarily make you a good person, either.

7. My argument as to why religion is bad extends from just the Crusades; think of the Inquisition, indulgences, the mere fact that the Church is one of the richest and most-bloated organizations in the world, and gladly traded morality for wealth many, many times in the past.

8. Many religious people merely convert to try and cheat death when they get older. It's a fact of life, sorry.

1, how does religion "taint" a view of the universe. Biased maybe, but not tainted. that's your personal opinion. Also, you are referring to the Catholic Church, no? yes, it's true that there are many mega-churches (in addition to the Catholic Church which owns a lot of land) but I think you've left out the thousands of churches that are not wealthy. Once again, overgeneralization. Also, about your last statement, as I posted earlier, this is not the case with many of the people and churches I have been around. You see, I don't know if this is stressed in the Catholic Church, but Christianity is not about RELIGION. On the contrary, it is about a personal RELATIONSHIP with Jesus Christ that comes ONLY by the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit, evidenced by speaking in other tongues (as the SPIRIT gives the utterance). Also, its easy to do wrong when you follow people, instead of Christ's example. And, also, the Church is not supposed to be an organization in the first place. It's 1, supposed to be the people which make the body of Christ. 2, the actual building is merely a gathering or assembly of Christians. The true calling of Christians is for them to be witnesses of Jesus Christ. You see, if you hadn't had religious ritual and tradition shoved down your throat, I have a feeling it might have been more interesting and inviting to you. Just my personal belief. Well, I'm outta here for the night.

[Vampyr]

*Sigh.* Welcome back my friends, to the argument that never ends...

[SG-25CSAR]

buddhism also stresses this

So does Christ. Do good for the Love of God. Do you slap your mother or strike you father? why?
Cause you love them. In reality if you do good for fear of punishment biblically you are impure and hell worthy. At least that Is what I hear in church every Sunday.

Christianity is about doing the right thing cause it is right. Buddhism is about doing the "right" thing cause it makes sense, there is a fine difference.

Wars have been started over Women,Money,Land,Greed,Power lust and Jealousy. There would still have been 2 World wars multiple genocides and various historic wars with or without Religion.

To say that Religion is why certain conflicts exist are the words of an uneducated mind.

Religion has turned my Drunk Abusive father into a suber, Kind soul when I was a baby. My whole Family was surprised of his change and Thanks to Christ's teachings, I grew up to know a Good Father. He Never really talked about church. My mom is Agnostic. the only time I heard word of God was at Church. I never went to any Bible Study or anything special. I just sat down every Sunday and when I was 12 I started to actually Learn. I am Christian by choice, by the work of God. It is said that it is not who wishes nor looks for faith in God that atian it. It is by his Mercy. I am not a Jew there fore I was condemed to life without his Love. Then Christ, his Blood claimed to God and he was moved. That's when I believed. I have always Watched the TLC, Discovery and everything Science seems to stick to me, yet I believe in God and the Bible.

And about my Father... Yeah, very negative force... Curse that Force that saved me from Child abuse...Note the sarcasm.

[LostCityGuardian]

I don't hold to these beliefs on some notion of blind faith, but adhere to the Greek word "pistis" translated faith, meaning: 'A full trusting reliance on someone or something based on clear evidence and trustworthiness'.
My trust in God is based on the evidence from nature which appears so clearly to me as a testament to God that to deny Him would be to dishonestly self-decieve myself. And based on the evidentce apparent in His revelations in the scripture.

Yes, but as I have had these arguments many times before, inevitably when a point is argued back and forth enough it comes to a point where logical argument cannot take the Christian/religion side any further because there is no logical or rational proof. At that point one must have faith that this is true. For example, the existence of God (or gods, if you follow a polytheistic religion). I'm not going to go through a play by play of the argument, but suffice it to say that while there is much circumstantial evidence which can be interpreted as either proving or disproving this (miracles etc), in the end God has not appeared in the sky and said definitively that he exists. The Bible requires faith that this is so, either faith that what is said in the Bible is true, or faith that if you believe that you have had an encounter/vision/conversation with God, that this was actually God and not just a random phenomenon or delusion etc. In the end it comes back to blind faith being required because otherwise the evidence is ambiguous. It is faith that makes the evidence a fact of God's existence/presence, and doubt that makes it just a mistake/misinterpretation. This is the point that I have always come to as an atheist, that I have too rational a mind to take the leap of faith.

Most denominations are split over non-essential issues.

I would disagree here. As an example, in Catholicism (how I was brought up), in order to reach heaven one must both have belief and faith in God, and have carried out enough good works to balance out the bad acts when being judged. In contrast, Protestant denominations (and this is a generalisation, I accept that) believe that once Jesus is accepted as one's Lord and Saviour, one is saved. No mention of good works. To me, this is a massive difference.

Disagreements like those that exist between most denominations are in fact contradictory to scripture!
We are told not to divide over petty disagreements,
or even more serious ones.

We are told to correct and love.

You see, that's kind of the problem here. We are told to correct - but who is correct? Correction would require consensus, and one side compromising on its beliefs. Are Catholics correct? That would mean Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists etc are incorrect. Similarly, if Baptists are correct ... you get the picture. In order to correct one must first determine a universal definition of what "correct" is. That is why ecumenism is bound to fail.

[An-Alteran]

At that point one must have faith that this is true.

The Greek word used in the Bible translated faith itself is a word meaning trust based on evidence.

I'm not going to go through a play by play of the argument, but suffice it to say that while there is much circumstantial evidence which can be interpreted as either proving or disproving this (miracles etc), in the end God has not appeared in the sky and said definitively that he exists.

Christians would assert that He has... IE: the universe and nature itself declares the truth of God.

And further that Jesus as God did indeed come and say "Hey, look I am here!" when He was resurrected.

The Bible requires faith that this is so, either faith that what is said in the Bible is true,

It requires evidential faith, not blind faith.

I have reasons for believing the Bible is divine rather than Human in inspired origin.

In the end it comes back to blind faith being required because otherwise the evidence is ambiguous.

The evidence is, to us, anything other than ambiguous.
It is clear and plain.

It is faith that makes the evidence a fact of God's existence/presence,

For many, it is the evidence that spurs the faith. Lee Stroble and other Atheists who have become Christians.

For me, it is the evidence that builds up my trust in God and His truthfullness.

and doubt that makes it just a mistake/misinterpretation.

I doubt often from a rational and intellectual perspective- that doubt often leads to discovery of more and deeper reasons to trust God.

This is the point that I have always come to as an atheist, that I have too rational a mind to take the leap of faith.

So you take a leap in the opposite direction? That there is no God?
You believe it is rational that something came from nothing?

That information in DNA arose from chaos?

That machines more complex and efficient than anything we have even come close to randomly came together in spite of all factors workings against and in the exact opposite direction?

I am sorry, but I am too rational to make that leap of blind faith.

I want to encourage you to do some reading.

Read the Case for Christ by Lee Stroble.
Read the Case for Faith by Lee Stroble.
Then read the Case for a Creator by Lee Stroble.
And the Case for Christmas by Lee Stroble.

Maybe read a few books on worldview- and the assumptions needed to hold Atheism.

Read the rebuttels of each of those if you want, after you have read the books themselves. Then look for the responses to the Rebuttels.

A few really good sites I have found on these topics are these:

http://www.tektonics.org/
scroll down and they have massive numbers of topics on everything bassically about Christianity.

http://www.jesusfactorfiction.com/
A comprehensive look at Jesus Christ.
Very interesting.

http://www.bible-history.com/
Interesting lists of articles and points.

I encourage you to look at our arguments, and the rebuttels to our arguments, and our responses to the rebuttels.

In all things Think.

I would disagree here.

Most. I said most I think.
An example of a disagreement that is not minor, is a demonstration that my statement is not true of all denominations- but I never claimed it was, only of most.

As an example, in Catholicism (how I was brought up), in order to reach heaven one must both have belief and faith in God, and have carried out enough good works to balance out the bad acts when being judged.

The problem is Paul says emphatically:

"Salvation is by faith alone not by works so that no man can boast."

Therefore, the Catholic position is incorrect.

Many would then point to James where he says "You say, 'I have faith and you have works', well show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works."

This is not talking about salvation at all, but how to identify true faith.

And thus James teaches us that true faith is a faith that causes good works.

In contrast, Protestant denominations (and this is a generalisation, I accept that) believe that once Jesus is accepted as one's Lord and Saviour, one is saved.

Uh, sort of.

We hold to sola scriptura by in large.
But even then many protestants fall into traditions that are unBiblical- or extraBiblical.

We teach that you are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, UNTO good works.

good works are a product of saving faith, not a cause of salvation so that no man can boast (ie: 'haha, I am a better person I was saved and you weren't! I did more works than you, haha!' )

No mention of good works.

We address good works, but as Paul said, not works unto salvation, but salvation unto good works.

In Ephesians Paul clearly lays this all out.

To me, this is a massive difference.

Yes. But not all Catholics truly hold to that. We generally view them as wrong and mistaken when they hold that- but very misguided, not unsaved.

You see, that's kind of the problem here. We are told to correct - but who is correct?

The interpretation that follows all the rules and is logically consistent with the text and not-self-contradictory.

Generally when looked at through that lense,
you get the correct message.

Quite frankly, that is how Protestants started- when they read the Bible and said... "this doesn't say what the Church is saying".

Correction would require consensus,

Actually it would require divergence.
For if there was consensus, then who do you correct?

and one side compromising on its beliefs.

Yes and no.

Are Catholics correct? That would mean Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists etc are incorrect. Similarly, if Baptists are correct ... you get the picture.

No denomination is entirely correct.

In order to correct one must first determine a universal definition of what "correct" is. That is why ecumenism is bound to fail.

The issue with Catholics is that they hold to traditions and Papal authority- also based on tradition.

[Agent_Dark]