Do you have a religion? Introduce me to it!

[Rocky S]

First of all I hope you read all of this. I used to be an atheist if that is what you are, and judging from your post i think you may be. I do know all the refuting and rebuttal argument and how to trip people up. And I do not say that to belittle you. But I do know were you are coming from. Now allow me to let you know were I am coming from. I do know it is not that you wont Believe it is that you can't. The prideful mind set that we have and the need to feel superior, to the atheist is in a matter of speaking is an addiction. like an intellectual drug based off of humanistic psychology and the need for humans to fill like they have all the answers. I know the utter emptiness of having an atheistic worldview. Atheist want us to go away but we will not we as christian do care and because of love we cant go away. love compels us, love is our passion, love for our fellow humans on this planet. These bible contradiction you have here have no weight but they are concise and well thought out and I can tell you are a very intelligent individual. And I will show you, through my foolishness .

Sure thing. The book has a lot of errors in it.
Let's first start with the contradictions. Which you can look up either in your own bible, or do your own Google search for tons of amazing websites that organized this data for you... I recommend you do both

which amazing websites most of them are bias and have and agenda, and just take things out of context.

Here's a few examples

Yes good examples of scriptures being taken out of context

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
Manipulating fathers and sons, not pitying someone, not sparing someone, not having mercy

mercy is given if someone repents and believes, I will explain a little later.

on someone, and destroying someone... Is contradictory to "being good to all." Also, how can he have "tender mercies over all his works" while simultaneously "nor (having) mercy."

the verse in Jeremiah is a prophecy concerning the destruction of Judah because of them going after other gods, false gods. And getting into other sinful areas. And How God allowed Babylon to come against Israel to destroy it. Man is a free moral agent Judah decided not to obey God and not keep their faith in his word,which always results in the judgment of God. If Judah would have not sinned this would have never happened. if you go on reading in Jeremiah, the prophet commanded then to repent of there sins and they did not, so judgment finally came.

Quote:
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
The peaceful God of war. I guess you could assume that God being a "man of war" considers war to be peaceful...

Context! Exo 15:3 is quoted from a song after moses led Israel through the red sea, after Moses through God rescued them from the grip of slavery from pharaoh. Basically it is like saying God is our hero so to speak, because Pharaoh's army drowned in the sea once again, man is a free moral again. Pharaoh would have not died if he had not opposed the word of the lord. God tole pharaoh through mosses to let my people go. I am sure you are familiar with the story.

Quote:
PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
Snails do not melt.

wow that website is grasping at straws on this one, leave a snail out in the sun and you will see it wither and melt into a wrinkled mess I see them on my front porch all the time. This happens because of the sun. The meaning of this psalm is; those that do not trust in the Lord will melt away, or will wither away.

Quote:
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt -nacah- to prove
Abraham." (GEN 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted,-peirazō- in its context to solicit to sin, to tempt of the temptations of the devil
I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (JAS 1:13)

first of all I put the proper word in the Hebrew and Greek and underlined them in your quotes. Does God tempt people or not? In Abraham's case it is testing. Yes God test us yo see what we will do with our free moral agency. In the case in the book of James it is talking abut temptation to sin or proclivities to sin. Two different words in the Hebrew and Greek. while in Gen., is testing to see what Abraham would do. James is about temptations of sin and know God does not temp us into sin. That comes from what we believe and as the bible says, comes from Satan. Tempt and test means two different things.

These are few examples. It's in your own bible. There are plenty of websites that details these... I copied these examples from this website: A List Of Biblical Contradictions

Again these website are bias and do not know what they are talking about.

Quote:
I hate to sound cliche but it is called faith which is what justifies us before a Holy God. The "Why?" part is a little redundant to ask people of faiths.
No it's not. Why do you have "faith" in this bible?

I believe it to be true.

What led you to this faith?

Conviction, knowing that I was spiritually bankrupt without Jesus because of my atheistic views and the sin that was in my life. And being told this scripture" for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Did something make sense?

Not really, I just gave up on my self thinking I knew every thing and cried out to Jesus. I just knew my thinking was wrong even the bible says that men wont come to the light for fear of their deeds may be exposed.

Why do you not have "faith" in something else?

I believe in the supernatural working of Gods spirit in his creation and I believe there is physical evidence in this faith.

What, in your mind, makes you have faith in just this particular book and religion and not something else?

The bible says those that are in Christ is a new creature old things are past away and all things become new. Here is a rhetorical question: How in the world could some explain that an atheist alcoholic drug user who overdosed twice in one week, can be supernaturally delivered and end up teaching /preaching at a local church; maybe through the Power of the Cross and Gods redemptive plan for man? well that is what I believe anyway.

Quote:
I don't read the bible to try to prove why,
Why not?

Because that would not be faith. Faith is explained in the bible as, is being convinced and having the title deed of something that is not reveled to the senses. That's what I did not understand as an atheist and when it came to engaging people of faith, until I accepted it. I repented for my disbelief and put my faith were it is now. In Jesus and his death on the cross for sin, and his resurrection for my justification. that in essence is christian faith in it being encompassed on Christ and him crucified. Its like this, I did not see Jesus die on a cross or see him resurrection but that is not what I am basing it as fact on. I am basing it on faith and the definition of that a gave.

Faith is not a valid answer

I agree.

At least to me, because you didn't specify how you came or have this faith. Did you have the faith first, and then study the bible later?

Yes, but that is not always the case with everyone

Did you read the bible, then have faith that it was true?

Not in my case but i do know of people that this is the case in there lives

Or why have faith in this book and not another?

for the reason I gave in my previous reply the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

If you "just do have faith" in this particular book why not "just have faith" in another?

The reason i just gave.

Sounds like you had a choice to make. Or was it?

Yes it was a choice, for even the bible say to chose this day whom you will serve. wow that was long lol:thud:

 

[Leyora]

From my point of view, I have no idea whether you really exist or not. There's no way for me to tell. From your point of view, you either:

1. Know that you're mere computer code and keeping that to yourself.
2. Don't know whether you're computer code or not, so not keeping anything to yourself.
3. Are, or believe you are, real, and I am just computer code and either I don't know that, or am keeping that to myself.

I simply stated that I don't like talking about this for the reason that it's unverifiable, and if it is... it's only verifiable to myself. (Or yourself) Therefore, there's no real reason for discussing it... Because in this reality that surrounds me, I have no idea if I'm a brain in a vat or not. So, instead of wasting my time guessing if I am a brain in a vat, or if you're brain in a vat... I like to focus on the reality that currently surrounds me... Even if it is a simulated existence.

Do not reply to my messages with cryptic messages. If you want to play childish games, do it with someone else.

Humor and sarcasm are beyond you. Again, I gave you a compliment... It actually wasn't that mysterious of a statement... I only implied it was cryptic because you didn't understand, and you still don't.

Once again, you are being offensive,

Telling you not to assume I'm talking to JUST you? That's not being offensive at all. You WERE being full of yourself. Perhaps I should rephrase my statement:

Please, kindly, don't always assume that everything that constantly said devotes my full attention to you 100% of the time... If you do somehow, mistakenly, believe this, I am really really sorry for this and I mean no offense to you.

and run a very good chance of being banned.

Again, you being offended by a non-offensive statement in a forum for debate is not a viable excuse for banning someone. It earns me a 0% chance of being banned unless the one banning me does it just "because they feel like it" or "because they can." Again, I state, if they were to do that, they're be an unfair, poor, and terrible moderator.

Also, I'm not sure if this forum has rules or policies on backseat modding... but you're doing an excellent job of it. How about you let the moderators advise me to do, or not do something... and perhaps stick to the discussion? Your mentioning of this just keeps making us go in circles and has no real purpose in this thread.

Speaking of backseat modding... I do believe this is called "derailing the thread" which you're doing by mentioning something that was resolved... like I stated before... on page 1 and possibly page 2.

You will no doubt think that you are a martyr, the one person in the whole world who doesn't think "the ocean is made of Jell-O pudding & Sprite", and everyone else except you is so stupid. But you won't be a martyr.

Again you're using the word "stupid" or implying I assume anyone was stupid, or even said it. Which, by the way, aside from quoting you and replying to your accusations of claiming I was using the word "stupid," I actually haven't. I haven't called you, 'nor anyone else stupid. You're the one who mentioned it, not I.

It won't be an abuse of power. It will be because you're childish and offensive and degrade the boards, unlike the vast majority of respectful people who post here.

I'm sorry, I am being respectful. How am I not? Being disrespectful would be to insult, troll, flame, or harass. Offending an explanation of things that actually occurred, and repeating them back to you, is in none of these categories. I don't believe I've disrespected you one bit in this conversation... if anything, I would think it would be the reverse since you're aggravating a dead discussion and derailing the thread.

Alternatively, you could realize that these boards are for discussion and communication,

Indeed they are and that's exactly what I've been doing this entire time. That IS why I came here, after all.

and not for being offensive

Which I haven't. You being offended by something doesn't mean I've been purposely offensive. Stating facts which are, and will always be held true is not offensive. Let's summarize, shall we?

You currently believe because I pointed out to Odion that he misread my post the first time... that this is an offensive statement... and that I somehow am automatically being "disrespectful" and "offensive" because of it. The fact is... Odion DID overlook a part of my post... which means he didn't read it properly the first time... Which I'm attributing to his lack of tea and the time of day / his mental state at the time being. (Which I'm going to guess was being tired.)

You're going to tell me that because I pointed this out... That this is offensive. A situation that happened... set in virtual stone... is offensive because I pointed it out?

Ironically, the only person who SHOULD be offended, if at all... Is Odion... Who, by the way, got over it rather quickly and continued to contribute to my post, in rather nice and polite manner.

So... why are you still discussing this if Odion hasn't brought it up anymore?

and playing games,

Well, there are a number of threads in this forum that do play games... So you'd be wrong in that aspect. Also, I was trying to lighten up the mood... but you decided yet again to take offense to every statement that's typed, even when it's in jest, instead of letting it go.

I like to make cryptic statements... If you do not like them, simply ignore them. Don't whine about it and tell me that I'm being mean or disrespectful, because it's not. If you get nothing out of them, then simply move on and let others who may or may not understand it, understand it.

It's amazing that you tell me that I'm being offensive and disrespectful... Yet you've been encouraging nothing but negative responses and you keep going on the subject.
17

and you could simply stop doing what you're doing,

Which I did on the 2nd page. This is like, the 3rd time I've told you this.

so convinced that you are right and all the others who have told you you were, and are, being offensive, are wrong (and just as stupid as if they thought the ocean was made of Sprite).

Yes, all 2 of the people who are offended and whined about it AFTER I had STOPPED mentioning it, out of the 18 people who proverbially kept their mouths shut and contributed to the topic like they were suppose to instead of bringing up a dead argument that was resolved by me and the only person who SHOULD be offended by it, if they so choose, which is Odion. You mean all THOSE people, which one of them are you? (That's 50% of the people who are rubbing salt on the already healing wound.)

You do realize you're 1 of 2 people who not only accused me of this, but also intentionally brought the subject up again... Right? You're in the minority.

It's very very simple, so try to get this through your skull. These boards are for communication. If you have something to say, then express it as clearly as possible so that communication is actually possible.

Which I've done. It's not my fault you're not following along and don't understand and get offended by what you're reading.

Do not deliberately be cryptic so that communication fails.

No, I think I will be deliberately cryptic all I want. Though, I still think it's funny that you're complaining that I gave you a compliment.

Do not play childish games with people without asking their permission first, as adults rarely enjoy childish games, and most people here are adults.

You're only assuming that the behavior is childish. You know what IS childish? Bringing up a dead conversation that ended on pages 1 or 2.

No, you will be banned because YOU don't understand that YOU are being offensive and that it isn't a case of everyone else in the world being so stupid, and that they may as well be saying the ocean is made of Sprite when faced with your superior intellect.

No, I think it's more so that you don't understand that a statement that isn't offensive to begin with... isn't offensive. Also, it can only be offensive to one, and only one person... The person that particular statement was directed to. Who, by the way... didn't exasperate the situation by continuing to talk about it. Guess who DID do this though?

If I am to be banned, warned, or told what to do... It will be by a moderator or an admin... It won't be by you or your wishful thinking in your pretend reality. (See! I snuck your own views in there!)

Like said... the only reason why this conversation continues is because you keep bringing it up. Most likely, you'll be the one banned for trying to make a situation worse. (Which you're doing a good job of by the way!)

No. You do. Ask any of the intelligent adults posting in this thread. You know, the ones who aren't playing childish games.

But I'm not offended nor am I being hostile at all.

Sorry, whatever you "complimented" me about pales into insignificance compared to the offensive behaviour you have continuously exhibited in this thread.

Continuously? Now you're offended by my replies as well as my initial post that wasn't directed towards you?

I'm sorry you can't handle a debate in the debate forum. Hoping that I'm unjustly banned doesn't make you automatically win.

For the record... I've done absolutely ZERO to be offensive. Like I said, pointing out facts and reality IS NOT offensive.

 

[kerravon]

I know the utter emptiness of having an atheistic worldview.

Speak for yourself. I was an atheist most of my life, and there was nothing "utterly empty" just because I had to guess one way or another whether there was a God or not (as defined by a vast number of religions, or some other definition). I guessed that there wasn't. In hindsight I know I guessed wrong, and in hindsight I shouldn't have attempted to guess an answer to that question, because I did not have sufficient data to make a guess (same as the question "is there life on other planets?" - we don't have sufficient data to do reasonable analysis - Plank's constant is just one huge arbitrary guess).

I much prefer that people are atheists, or at least deists, rather than following any of the major religions, so that they're more likely to actually make an attempt to fix this earth instead of saying "God will fix that, anything that is wrong is all part of God's plan". I actually consider that mindset to be "utterly empty".

 

[kerravon]

I simply stated that I don't like talking about this for the reason that it's unverifiable, and if it is... it's only verifiable to myself. (Or yourself)

Most religious discussions are necessarily unverifiable. There's no way to disprove that e.g. Hinduism isn't true. But even without verifiability, we still have the ability to debate the most logical way the universe would be implemented (using our own logic skills as a yardstick).

Therefore, there's no real reason for discussing it...

There is a reason to discuss it. It's even got a Wikipedia page. If you don't wish to discuss a very plausible model, far more plausible (in my opinion) than all the major religions, that's up to you.

Because in this reality that surrounds me, I have no idea if I'm a brain in a vat or not. So, instead of wasting my time guessing if I am a brain in a vat, or if you're brain in a vat... I like to focus on the reality that currently surrounds me... Even if it is a simulated existence.

If you are a brain in a vat, then you first of all have a solution to the "problem of evil". Secondly, you can start thinking about what you should do about this computer wired to your brain. Are you happy with what the computer is doing? If not, what tools do you have available?

Telling you not to assume I'm talking to JUST you? That's not being offensive at all. You WERE being full of yourself.

Saying that I am "full of myself", just because I assumed that a message written in response to something I said was meant to be understood by me, is offensive. If you (allegedly) believe you were "just stating facts", rather than being offensive, then you have the mental maturity of a 5 year old. I'm not expecting you to understand that (given the 5 year old mentality), so I'll save my breath. I don't really care if you continue to be offensive and do/don't get away with it. I do care when people get banned for expressing controversial opinions (I prefer to see them live/die in the free marketplace of ideas), but that is not you at all. Good luck.

 

[Leyora]

First of all I hope you read all of this. I used to be an atheist if that is what you are, and judging from your post i think you may be. I do know all the refuting and rebuttal argument and how to trip people up. And I do not say that to belittle you. But I do know were you are coming from. Now allow me to let you know were I am coming from. I do know it is not that you wont Believe it is that you can't. The prideful mind set that we have and the need to feel superior, to the atheist is in a matter of speaking is an addiction. like an intellectual drug based off of humanistic psychology and the need for humans to fill like they have all the answers. I know the utter emptiness of having an atheistic worldview.

What exactly is an "Atheistic worldview?" Reality exists as-is. How exactly is it empty? Changing your "view" of the "world" doesn't add or subtract from reality.

Atheist want us to go away but we will not we as christian do care and because of love we cant go away.

Those who don't believe in your religion actually don't want you to immediately "go away." They want you to explain their religion to them and back it up with evidence. So far, Christianity hasn't done this. This is like some annoying neighbor constantly boasting about how they have this magnificent beach-house in Florida that's a 12-story mansion... But at every turn, fail to provide proof of residency. At first it sounds fascinating! You're curious about this beach house! You want to visit the beach house! The neighbor tells you how wonderful it is and that you should come down to their beach house! Yet is never willing to show you the beach house or provide evidence. It eventually, gets annoying. So, if you mean in that sense, I could see how "atheists" would want you to go away.

I don't believe they don't want you to necessarily go away... They want you to stop lying about something that clearly doesn't exist... Even if you don't believe you're lying or actually DO believe it exists.

love compels us, love is our passion, love for our fellow humans on this planet. These bible contradiction you have here have no weight but they are concise and well thought out and I can tell you are a very intelligent individual. And I will show you, through my foolishness .

which amazing websites most of them are bias and have and agenda, and just take things out of context.

I'm sorry... How exactly is something very concrete and there, plain as day, black and white... From your OWN bible, out of context?

the verse in Jeremiah is a prophecy concerning the destruction of Judah because of them going after other gods, false gods. And getting into other sinful areas. And How God allowed Babylon to come against Israel to destroy it. Man is a free moral agent Judah decided not to obey God and not keep their faith in his word,which always results in the judgment of God. If Judah would have not sinned this would have never happened. if you go on reading in Jeremiah, the prophet commanded then to repent of there sins and they did not, so judgment finally came.

You still did not explain how the two statements were NOT contradictory. All you did was elaborate on that one part of the story... Which, neither myself nor that website deny is there.

For example, I could say:

"For 2 years now, the janitor ALWAYS, never forgetting, cleans up all bathrooms."

And also at the same time tell you, "The janitor didn't clean up one bathroom 1 year ago, it was disgusting... The bathroom was blocked off by a barricade of chains and locks."

And only quoting, "The janitor didn't clean up one bathroom 1 year ago, it was disgusting..."

The reason why the janitor didn't cleanup the bathroom is irrelevant. It's not taken out of context and the 2 statements DO conflict with each other.

Since we're talking about God here, and "His" own word... which is suppose to be absolute... There's even more scrutiny and unchangeable, but contradictory facts.

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Context! Exo 15:3 is quoted from a song after moses led Israel through the red sea, after Moses through God rescued them from the grip of slavery from pharaoh. Basically it is like saying God is our hero so to speak, because Pharaoh's army drowned in the sea once again, man is a free moral again. Pharaoh would have not died if he had not opposed the word of the lord. God tole pharaoh through mosses to let my people go. I am sure you are familiar with the story.

Okay, even though you explained the context, the two statements are still FALSE. You did not explain how they are NOT. Either the LORD is a man of war, or he is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leyora

wow that website is grasping at straws on this one, leave a snail out in the sun and you will see it wither and melt into a wrinkled mess I see them on my front porch all the time. This happens because of the sun. The meaning of this psalm is; those that do not trust in the Lord will melt away, or will wither away.

Dehydration is not melting. It's evaporation. It APPEARS to melt but it does not. Science is helpful at times like these.

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt -nacah- to prove
Abraham." (GEN 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted,-peirazō- in its context to solicit to sin, to tempt of the temptations of the devil
I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (JAS 1:13)

first of all I put the proper word in the Hebrew and Greek and underlined them in your quotes. Does God tempt people or not? In Abraham's case it is testing. Yes God test us yo see what we will do with our free moral agency. In the case in the book of James it is talking abut temptation to sin or proclivities to sin. Two different words in the Hebrew and Greek. while in Gen., is testing to see what Abraham would do. James is about temptations of sin and know God does not temp us into sin. That comes from what we believe and as the bible says, comes from Satan. Tempt and test means two different things.

Of course they do when you insert words and replace them. Also, you happily pointed out another contradiction of your bible while trying to explain this, and I was actually hoping you'd do this. The bible is translated in a number of ways... Not all of them the same. They contradict each other.

In the version that was quoted... Tempt seemed to be the adequately appropriate translated word. If it wasn't suppose to be translated as "tempt" why did they translate it as such? If the translator meant "test" they would have translated it as "test."

However, I'll partially give you this one because you are half-correct. In the context of Abraham, it was a "test." However, he did TEMPT Abraham to go forth. For example, would you not say that if I said, "Go ahead, eat the cake. Do it. Go on... eat the cake." that it would not an an attempt at tempting you? Even if I was testing you because you were told earlier NOT to eat the cake... If I was instructing you to do something, that would be tempting you to do it.

God clearly did this when he tempted Abraham to sacrifice Issac to commit murder... which is a sin.

These are few examples. It's in your own bible. There are plenty of websites that details these... I copied these examples from this website: A List Of Biblical Contradictions
Again these website are bias and do not know what they are talking about.

They're not though. They're from your own bible and NOT taken out of context. Whether the context is there or not... they're still contradictory.

I believe it to be true.

Still haven't answered why though. You believe it to be true because you believe it to be true? For what reason? Just because?

Conviction, knowing that I was spiritually bankrupt without Jesus because of my atheistic views and the sin that was in my life.

Atheistic views would be the same as yours, only with your religion added on top of it and altering it.

And being told this scripture" for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Which is also a contradiction, makes little sense, and has never been verified.

Not really, I just gave up on my self thinking I knew every thing and cried out to Jesus. I just knew my thinking was wrong even the bible says that men wont come to the light for fear of their deeds may be exposed.

Rather egotistical to think you knew everything. The truth for knowledge actually starts at, "I do not know."

I believe in the supernatural working of Gods spirit in his creation and I believe there is physical evidence in this faith.

Could you please provide some? (Please don't say the bible.)

I'm sorry, can you explain it without telling me what the bible claims? Because so far it's still unverified.

 

[Leyora]

those that are in Christ is a new creature old things are past away and all things become new.

Here is a rhetorical question: How in the world could some explain that an atheist alcoholic drug user who overdosed twice in one week, can be supernaturally delivered and end up teaching /preaching at a local church; maybe through the Power of the Cross and Gods redemptive plan for man? well that is what I believe anyway.

Why does the drug user have to be an atheist? Most alcoholic and obsessive drug users DON'T want to be like that. They seek out any way they possibly can to get out of it. If that means they replace their terrible habits with religion... All the better for them. I wouldn't say that's from "God's redemptive plan for man" but rather that person's desire to escape. Also, what if that same person got out of their drug use via another religion... or some pseudo-religion like Scientology? Then obviously that scenario doesn't work.

Yes, I know it was rhetorical. I like answering such questions when I can.

Because that would not be faith. Faith is explained in the bible as, is being convinced and having the title deed of something that is not reveled to the senses. That's what I did not understand as an atheist and when it came to engaging people of faith, until I accepted it. I repented for my disbelief and put my faith were it is now. In Jesus and his death on the cross for sin, and his resurrection for my justification. that in essence is christian faith in it being encompassed on Christ and him crucified. Its like this, I did not see Jesus die on a cross or see him resurrection but that is not what I am basing it as fact on. I am basing it on faith and the definition of that a gave.

Which I think is a terrible idea. Faith is basically being unverifiable. If it you base your life off something that you simply "believe because you want to" that doesn't make it true.

Not in my case but i do know of people that this is the case in there lives

Okay, so you didn't even fully understand what you were having faith in... but had faith in it.

Yes it was a choice, for even the bible say to chose this day whom you will serve. wow that was long lol

I appreciate you keeping up! Also, if I argue back or don't find your answers sufficient, don't take offense. I learned a lot from your post and I thank you for typing all of it. <3

(And yes it was long, my reply to you reached the character limit)

 

[Sir Doom]

I know what the word better means. I'm asking YOU to tell me what you mean by it. This is like telling me that you're eating, and you have a salad in front of you. You come up to me and say, "Suggest or bring something better for me to eat." -- However, since I have no idea what you consider to be "better" I have no idea what to bring you, or even THINK about what to bring you. Would spaghetti be better? Would a bowl of rocks? What if I think soup would be better, but you're allergic to the soup I bring?

Incorrect analogy. You are the one initiating, remember? I am eating salad. You approach and ask what I'm eating and why. I tell you that I'm eating salad because its better than not eating salad. Then your head explodes because you have no idea what better means.

To put it in light of the actual conversation:

Believing in god is better than not believing in god.

When I say better I mean definition 1, 2 and 5 given previously. This is both what the word means and what I mean by it when I type it. Are you following yet?

So, being sassy with me and trying to suggest that I don't understand what you're talking about because I don't understand what the definition of the word "better" is, is both a waste of your time and mine. It gets you nowhere.

I'm sassy, eh? Well, that's an attribute I haven't earned since grade school. I must be doing something right! Just so you know, its absolutely impossible to waste my own time. As for getting nowhere:

"Greetings from Planet Mirth."

We already establish that this is your current option. How can it be your current option AND the unidentified "mysterious" option? You basically just said, "The alternative to a universe containing god(s) is a universe containing god(s)."

No, the alternative to your option of "A universe that exists on its own without gods" is "a universe with gods". if you were already operating with these two options (the only two available for this question) why would you be calling for an alternative to the one you presented? You already had one.

I am, and like I just pointed out, you're the one not being intuitive because the statement I just typed above, which is what YOU said, makes 0 sense.

No. What doesn't make sense is your question minus my option, which is how you presented it. Blame yourself.

Ah, so you just make stuff up as you go along? This is essentially what I'm getting from what you believe in.

Yes. Exactly. Just like you and everyone else. Or do you think you have some secret access to knowledge that the rest of us are not privy to?

So essentially... anything you don't know the answer to you just "believe exists" as you see fit. I see. It would be wonderful if that worked in reality, but it doesn't. (IE. I can't believe that my sandwich is ice cream, therefore it becomes ice cream.)

Really? It doesn't work that way? How many times have you tried to turn your sandwich into ice cream whilst simultaneously believing it was possible to do so? Or is it safe to say that you don't (and could never) believe that it was possible and are therefore incapable of making that statement beyond the speculative?

Not that it really matters. I never said anything like that. How about a little fire, Scarecrow? Or should I say Straw Man?

 

[chinu]

Hello!
For anyone who's theistic, I'd like to hear what you believe in, and why.
Thanks in advance!

I don't BELIEVE in the things which are already infront of our eyes, God is infront of eyes, So why to BELIEVE ?

Well.. Are you looking for god ? tell me..

 

[Leyora]

Most religious discussions are necessarily unverifiable. There's no way to disprove that e.g. Hinduism isn't true. But even without verifiability, we still have the ability to debate the most logical way the universe would be implemented (using our own logic skills as a yardstick).

Well, fortunately... that's now how things are done. The burden of proof for those who claim Hinduism is true must provide evidence that it is true.

People don't go around trying to DISPROVE things they don't have proof for to begin with.

There is a reason to discuss it. It's even got a Wikipedia page. If you don't wish to discuss a very plausible model, far more plausible (in my opinion) than all the major religions, that's up to you.

I could discuss it. But what would be the point if it's unverifiable? It's on Wikipedia because it's notable and like you said, plausible. However, so are a lot of things.

If you are a brain in a vat, then you first of all have a solution to the "problem of evil". Secondly, you can start thinking about what you should do about this computer wired to your brain. Are you happy with what the computer is doing? If not, what tools do you have available?

The question is IF. Like said, YOU could be the one that's a brain in a vat... So it wouldn't matter what I think. Either way, it's unverifiable to me because I'm stuck in the simulation. The tools I have available would be what's in the simulation... Which, again... Take out the "brain in the vat scenario" and all I'm left is the reality in which I live in... Whether it's a simulation or not.

So... why wouldn't I just accept everything around me as it is... Instead of accepting it as it is... AND start thinking that it's a simulation?

Saying that I am "full of myself", just because I assumed that a message written in response to something I said was meant to be understood by me, is offensive. If you (allegedly) believe you were "just stating facts", rather than being offensive, then you have the mental maturity of a 5 year old. I'm not expecting you to understand that (given the 5 year old mentality), so I'll save my breath.

Nope, getting offended over what you don't like to hear is the mentality of a 5 year old. Absolute facts, and coping and dealing with reality is for adults... Which is what I'm doing, and you're not. You're unable to cope with the way I word sentences, and you're unable to cope with the fact that the sentences I state are factually true. Now, it's up to YOU to believe if it's offensive.

"I'm currently on a computer typing on forums." -- This is a factually true statement... Why would you get offended by it? How about this statement, does it bother you?

"You're beating a dead horse."

While you're not literally doing this, it's a metaphor for something else, if you're unfamiliar with the term.

Factually, what I mean to say is: "You're exasperating a situation and repeating yourself, making a conversation that was resolved on pages 1 and 2, worse."

Which, you have. Now are you going to get offended by this too? Am I incorrect in saying you're being annoying by going on and on over an already gone over discussion?

I don't really care if you continue to be offensive

Well I can't continue to do something that I never did in the first place. You're clearly not following along. Logic.

and do/don't get away with it.

Get away with what? Typing factually true statements and you being offended by them when they weren't directed at you in the first place?

I do care when people get banned for expressing controversial opinions (I prefer to see them live/die in the free marketplace of ideas), but that is not you at all. Good luck.

Yes, that scenario would not be me at all because not only is the statement you claim is offensive not an opinion... It just happens to be a FACT.

I believe you're confused. You're acting as if I called a fat man fat, because he's fat. Which would be impolite to do.

However, pointing out that someone didn't read something their first go, ISN'T impolite. It's helpful and points out an error on their part.

See the difference?

 

[kerravon]

Well, fortunately... that's now how things are done. The burden of proof for those who claim Hinduism is true must provide evidence that it is true.

Absolutely. And maybe in the next few years, that evidence will be forthcoming. Who the hell knows?

If you're only interested in discussing things that have been scientifically proven true, to the extent that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, then I can tell you in advance that no-one here or anywhere else is going to provide you with such a thing. So what do you hope to find on a religious forum? Why didn't you go to a science forum instead?

People don't go around trying to DISPROVE things they don't have proof for to begin with.

Actually, many people do exactly that. Even you did it yourself mere hours ago. You pointed out contradictions in the bible proving that it couldn't be true. Even without anyone providing proof of the bible to you first.

I could discuss it. But what would be the point if it's unverifiable?

Well, I personally consider the point to be that it presents a model (one of many), which we can then attempt to speculate on. E.g., if I am a brain in a vat, what would be the "purpose of life"? I would realise that I am the only real person, and therefore the burden is on me to do something about this damned computer feeding me horrible data. And that perhaps the purpose of life is to coax the computer into stop feeding me horrible data, so that I can move on to "level 2" (or 2 trillion, whatever level this is). You could form the same conclusion, that you personally are the only real person, and the burden is on you. Do you take up the challenge? What tools do you have at your disposal? Can characters in the computer simulation provide advice?

It's on Wikipedia because it's notable and like you said, plausible. However, so are a lot of things.

Yes, a lot of things are. Some of them appropriate for a religious forum, some of them not. This one I consider to be appropriate, although I don't care if you want to ignore this excellent model in favour of arguing the toss about the bible with a Christian who is not at all likely to say "wow, I've never heard that argument before, thanks for letting me know, I'm going to be an atheist like you now that you've put me on the right path".

The question is IF. Like said, YOU could be the one that's a brain in a vat... So it wouldn't matter what I think.

I don't agree. Even IF I am the only brain, YOU may have some vital piece of the puzzle to give me, that would allow me to break out of this simulation and onto the next one (or preferably one that I get to make up myself).

Either way, it's unverifiable to me because I'm stuck in the simulation. The tools I have available would be what's in the simulation... Which, again... Take out the "brain in the vat scenario" and all I'm left is the reality in which I live in... Whether it's a simulation or not.

The simulation has given you a vast array of tools. First and foremost, we have the scientific method. Secondly, we've got scientists. Next, we've got wikipedia, google, and lots of people who can help fill in blanks in your knowledge.

So... why wouldn't I just accept everything around me as it is... Instead of accepting it as it is... AND start thinking that it's a simulation?

Accept things as they are? With women (seemingly) being raped etc? No, no, no. I think the most logical (not proof) thing is that we are meant to be putting an end to that - EVEN if it just a simulation (because we don't know for sure - maybe it's real, whatever "real" even means). But you don't need to be bitter that God set up a universe where he failed to protect women. There may well be an explanation for that. All you can do is try your best, and see God as more of a competitor than someone to obey. That's another conceptual change that comes out of considering the brain in a vat.

 

[Leyora]

Incorrect analogy. You are the one initiating, remember? I am eating salad. You approach and ask what I'm eating and why. I tell you that I'm eating salad because its better than not eating salad. Then your head explodes because you have no idea what better means.

But that's not the discussion that took place. You said and I quote so you don't get confused on who's asking who, what:

Have you found a better option? I'm interested in better options.

That appears to be YOU asking ME a question. Let me paste it again so you don't get confused again:

Have you found a better option?

This is you, asking me (the word you in your sentence) if I have found a better option. You also said:

I'm interested in better options.

That's you stating the fact that you were interested in better options.

So, to say:

Incorrect analogy. You are the one initiating,

Wrong, we established you were the one initiating, just in case, I'll quote it a 3rd time:

Have you found a better option? I'm interested in better options.

My alias is not "Sir Doom." I did not type the above. So you are wrong in stating, and I quote again:

Incorrect analogy. You are the one initiating,

So, let's continue on how wrong you are:

I am eating salad. You approach and ask what I'm eating and why. I tell you that I'm eating salad because its better than not eating salad.

Wrong. You claimed you were, to keep the analogy going, "Eating a salad because you don't know of anything better."

Don't believe you said that? Let's quote you once more:

I suppose I am a theist as I believe in god(s).

Why do I believe in god(s)? Because I have yet to encounter a better option.When I say "better" I mean "better for me".

Let's break it down into the analogy

I suppose I am a theist as I believe in god(s).

This is you eating a salad. I inquired as to why you're eating that salad. Your answer is:

Why do I believe in god(s)? Because I have yet to encounter a better option.

To keep the analogy going, this is you saying, "Why am I eating a salad? Because I have yet to encounter a better option."

So, my analogy is 100% accurate... and your inability to keep track of what you said makes your head explode, or slowly degrade... cause not even you know what you're talking about after you've said it. (Either that or you have Alzheimers. And no, I'm not being sarcastic or joking. If you have Alzheimers you should tell me now because that is a serious condition and I'd feel bad proving you wrong in a debate that you can't properly recall.)

Believing in god is better than not believing in god.

This isn't the statement in which I was asking what you meant by better. I'm replying to your request... which you initiated (must I quote it again) that you're looking for a "better" answer.

I'm sassy, eh? Well, that's an attribute I haven't earned since grade school. I must be doing something right! Just so you know, its absolutely impossible to waste my own time. As for getting nowhere:

"Greetings from Planet Mirth."

Thank you for your kind welcome. Wait.. wut?

No, the alternative to your option of "A universe that exists on its own without gods" is "a universe with gods".

Correct... But this isn't what you stated.

if you were already operating with these two options (the only two available for this question) why would you be calling for an alternative to the one you presented? You already had one.

Because you said your reasoning was you believe in "a universe with god(s)" because you weren't presented with a better one. I asked you why living in a universe without god(s) wasn't acceptable, as a response to this

No. What doesn't make sense is your question minus my option, which is how you presented it. Blame yourself.

But that's not how events occurred. I'm not requoting, I think you might want to take the effort to re-read what you typed... because you obviously forgot.

Yes. Exactly. Just like you and everyone else. Or do you think you have some secret access to knowledge that the rest of us are not privy to?

No, but that's what you're doing. I'm not claiming that gods do, or do not, exist. You're the one saying it, not I.

I have the knowledge of what I observe around me. It's the same knowledge both you and I have access to. Only you're claiming that gods exist...

Try to follow along, because I'm going to use another analogy:

You, me, and some guy is in an almost empty room, with just a chair in the middle of it. We all observe this and agree that the chair exists. However, the guy tells both of us that there's an elephant sitting in the chair. You don't see an elephant. I don't see an elephant. To us, there's clearly no elephant... but that guy claims there is. Are we wrong and there's an elephant.. or is it more likely he's making stuff up that's not true? Also, how is an elephant in a chair BETTER than an elephant NOT in the chair? I could care less either way. But that man does.

Really? It doesn't work that way? How many times have you tried to turn your sandwich into ice cream whilst simultaneously believing it was possible to do so? Or is it safe to say that you don't (and could never) believe that it was possible and are therefore incapable of making that statement beyond the speculative?

Even if I tried to do it, and believed it was possible... it still wouldn't be possible.

Not that it really matters. I never said anything like that.

You did though, and this time I am going to quote you:

It is better for me to believe in god(s) because the universe itself would be better if it contained god(s).

The comparison being "It would be better to believe my sandwich is an ice cream, because the sandwich would be better if it was ice cream."

How about a little fire, Scarecrow? Or should I say Straw Man?

Hasn't been any strawman arguments in this discussion yet, from either of us. Only thing that happened during our discussion is that you completely forgot what you typed, then told me I was wrong when I was repeating what you said.

 

[Leyora]

Actually, many people do exactly that. Even you did it yourself mere hours ago. You pointed out contradictions in the bible proving that it couldn't be true. Even without anyone providing proof of the bible to you first.

I had stated that the bible is full of contradictions. Which neither proves nor disproves anything, aside from the fact that it contradicts itself.

This is within the realm of what he requested from me. He asked me point out the contradictions, which I did.

This wasn't proof or an argument against Christanity... This was an argument of me stating the fact the bible has a lot of contradictions.

I never said I required proof of the bible. I know the bible exists. Whether it's true or not is another subject and debate.

Well, I personally consider the point to be that it presents a model (one of many), which we can then attempt to speculate on. E.g., if I am a brain in a vat, what would be the "purpose of life"?

The same would hold true if I'm not a brain in a vat. I can't verify that I'm a brain in a vat so why would I even bother believing it? We're going in circles.

There are tons of other explanations and things that are plausible... I see no reason for the "brain in a vat" scenario to hold any more water than "I'm a cosmic speck of sentient dust in a void of nothingness dreaming of not being lonely." Just because I speculated the idea doesn't mean I should peruse it. Even if it were true, I can't do anything about it... I'm asleep.

I would realise that I am the only real person, and therefore...

But you're going on the assertion. I'm not going to go on assertions that can't be proven. Perhaps if my room started glitching out and bits of code started flying around a pixelated mess... Then I'd probably have a reason to consider "Oh crud, is it possible I actually AM a brain in a vat!?"

Even if I was... It wouldn't matter to you, because you don't exist. It wouldn't matter to me from your perspective, because I don't exist.

Like I said, this is why I don't do these discussions. They're only provable to yourself.

Yes, a lot of things are. Some of them appropriate for a religious forum, some of them not. This one I consider to be appropriate, although I don't care if you want to ignore this excellent model in favour of arguing the toss about the bible with a Christian who is not at all likely to say "wow, I've never heard that argument before, thanks for letting me know, I'm going to be an atheist like you now that you've put me on the right path".

I posted this particular thread in order to learn people's beliefs. I'm arguing back with things I know ARE true, verse things that are false, or what I know to be false... to get more information and clarification as best as possible.
Most of the time, there is no winner in a debate.

Perhaps you convinced me that the brain in a vat model is true... That means YOU are the brain in the vat, therefore I'm not. I'm part of the computer. =P

It would be futile to discuss it with me because it WOULDN'T MATTER. That is why I don't discuss it.

Proposing it is interesting, and I thank you for suggesting it. (Even though I was already aware of it.) But discussing it after that is pointless.

I don't agree. Even IF I am the only brain, YOU may have some vital piece of the puzzle to give me, that would allow me to break out of this simulation and onto the next one (or preferably one that I get to make up myself).

BUT WAIT A SEC. I thought you didn't want me to provide hints to you? You told me you don't like games and don't like cryptic messages.

You're contradicting yourself.

What if what I typed earlier was a grand piece to the puzzle... But you were so offended by it and didn't understand it... You completely missed it.

You're seeking out pieces to a simulated puzzle yet you get ticked off at the replies and hints you're given?

Food for thought... I'll adjourn from the forums for a bit while you absorb this revelation.. and leave you with this... which you typed yourself... from someone who doesn't like games.

All you can do is try your best, and see God as more of a competitor than someone to obey. That's another conceptual change that comes out of considering the brain in a vat.

 

[kerravon]

I had stated that the bible is full of contradictions. Which neither proves nor disproves anything, aside from the fact that it contradicts itself.

You don't seem to understand logic. A contradiction disproves something.

Law of noncontradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The same would hold true if I'm not a brain in a vat. I can't verify that I'm a brain in a vat so why would I even bother believing it? We're going in circles.

If you don't have a superior model to that, then it makes sense, in a religious forum, to explore the implications of that.

There are tons of other explanations and things that are plausible...

Such as? All the major ones are complete dogma that people have mostly been indoctrinated into as a child (which I consider to be child abuse). What is the reason you think it's worth discussing the (unprovable) indoctrinated dogma, but not the far more logical brain-in-a-vat?

I see no reason for the "brain in a vat" scenario to hold any more water than "I'm a cosmic speck of sentient dust in a void of nothingness dreaming of not being lonely."

I can't answer that, because I do not understand what it means. Please explain the characteristics of the dust particle? When you say it's sentient, it's intelligent too, right? Please explain how the sentient dust particle manages to produce all the things you see on the internet, and all the people you meet on the street? And when you say "dreaming", is that the only thought process in play? And regarding not being lonely - it is genetically attracted to other dust particles? And do you personally consider this to be a superior model to the brain-in-a-vat paradigm regarding answering questions about the meaning of life, or are you deliberately giving something worse than brain-in-a-vat because you can't actually think of anything superior to brain-in-a-vat?

Just because I speculated the idea doesn't mean I should peruse it. Even if it were true, I can't do anything about it... I'm asleep.

Scientific progress is made by people speculating things and then thinking about them. If you believe you have something better than brain-in-a-vat, please share. Also, why do you think you can't do anything about something because you're asleep? Nightmares often wake people up, so you could generate a nightmare. What exactly is a nightmare in the dust particle paradigm?

But you're going on the assertion. I'm not going to go on assertions that can't be proven.

Then you're after a scientific forum, not a religious forum. There's no religion here that has been successfully vetted by the scientific community.

Perhaps if my room started glitching out and bits of code started flying around a pixelated mess... Then I'd probably have a reason to consider "Oh crud, is it possible I actually AM a brain in a vat!?"

The other reason would be if you couldn't think of a better model, and didn't want to waste time arguing the toss with religious people who are regurgitating indoctrinated dogma.

Even if I was... It wouldn't matter to you, because you don't exist. It wouldn't matter to me from your perspective, because I don't exist.

Even if I'm a bit of computer code following a predetermined path and am not "real", I still request that you do something to end the evil on earth. Because to me, the computer code governing me is still "real" to me, and in the same way that you would bestow animal rights on a dog, I request that you bestow "robot rights" on me.

Like I said, this is why I don't do these discussions. They're only provable to yourself.

Like I said, none of the discussions on religion are going to provide anything provable.

I posted this particular thread in order to learn people's beliefs. I'm arguing back with things I know ARE true, verse things that are false, or what I know to be false... to get more information and clarification as best as possible.

Clarification of what people were indoctrinated with? Or accepted because it "felt nice" even though it contained absolutely no proof? Why?

Most of the time, there is no winner in a debate.

That is not true. In most religious debates the atheists win, as those regurgitating dogma violate the scientific method, so lose instantly to the atheist who almost never does.

Perhaps you convinced me that the brain in a vat model is true... That means YOU are the brain in the vat, therefore I'm not. I'm part of the computer. =P

What action should you take if you are the brain?
What action should you take if you are the computer?
What action should you take if you don't know which you are?

It would be futile to discuss it with me because it WOULDN'T MATTER. That is why I don't discuss it.

What doesn't matter is arguing the toss with Christians about why they believe the bible. It's ALWAYS going to be "because I don't following the scientific method" (even though they won't state it as such), and if you really wanted to, you could ask "why don't you follow the scientific method instead?", but you sure as hell won't get "why, what a good idea - I'll do so immediately" as a response.

Proposing it is interesting, and I thank you for suggesting it. (Even though I was already aware of it.) But discussing it after that is pointless.

You were also aware of Christianity, and you knew there was no proof of that too.

BUT WAIT A SEC. I thought you didn't want me to provide hints to you? You told me you don't like games and don't like cryptic messages. You're contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not contradicting myself. I don't want hints from a deranged 5-year-old, I want actionable intelligence.

What if what I typed earlier was a grand piece to the puzzle... But you were so offended by it and didn't understand it... You completely missed it.

I wasn't offended by a deliberately cryptic message. I was annoyed, as that is not the purpose of these forums. I was offended by you saying that I was "full of it".

If I have indeed missed a great piece of wisdom, rather than missing the rantings of a deranged 5 year old, so be it. There's not much I can do about it, because I didn't understand it, and you didn't clarify it when deliberately asked, and in my life's experience, I'm more likely to be dealing with a deranged 5 year old than someone with a great piece of wisdom, so the odds are I haven't missed anything at all. Also the odds of great wisdom being embedded in such a short sentence are highly unlikely, although not impossible. "fight subjugation" (not occupation etc) is an example.

You're seeking out pieces to a simulated puzzle yet you get ticked off at the replies and hints you're given?

No, I'm ticked off by the rantings of an offensive 5 year old, decreasing the signal to noise ratio, in my pursuit of useful data.

Food for thought... I'll adjourn from the forums for a bit while you absorb this revelation.. and leave you with this... which you typed yourself... from someone who doesn't like games.

I already knew this. I noticed it when I typed it.

 

[Sir Doom]

Funny you seem to flip back and forth between answering my question and being confused about my answer to your question. Or did you forget that you asked me a question to start? It seems like you have so I'll go ahead and show you.

For anyone who's theistic, I'd like to hear what you believe in, and why.

Remember that? Its from the OP. Here's my answer:

Why do I believe in god(s)? Because I have yet to encounter a better option.

And here's your response to that:

What do you mean by "better?" Also, why is the option of "The universe exists without god(s) on it's own" not a "better" option? How is it less "better" than another mysterious option that I'm not sure what to use as an example because I don't know what you mean by "better."

And here's my response to that:

bet·ter 1 (btr)
adj. Comparative of good.
1. Greater in excellence or higher in quality.
2. More useful, suitable, or desirable: found a better way to go; a suit with a better fit than that one.
3. More highly skilled or adept: I am better at math than English.
4. Greater or larger: argued for the better part of an hour.
5. More advantageous or favorable; improved: a better chance of success.
6. Healthier or more fit than before: The patient is better today.

Probably 1,2 and 5 in this context. You should really gain a better grasp of English words if you plan to do a lot of posting.
BTW, the 'mysterious' other option is "A universe containing god(s)." Not that tough. Its the opposite of the option you gave. I would have thought you were a bit more intuitive than this.

And your response again:

I know what the word better means. I'm asking YOU to tell me what you mean by it. This is like telling me that you're eating, and you have a salad in front of you. You come up to me and say, "Suggest or bring something better for me to eat." -- However, since I have no idea what you consider to be "better" I have no idea what to bring you, or even THINK about what to bring you. Would spaghetti be better? Would a bowl of rocks? What if I think soup would be better, but you're allergic to the soup I bring?

See that? Your salad analogy was meant as a response to the first part of my post. All of these responses were direct to the proceeding message evidenced by the quoting of that message.

The question at the end was addressed separately. Allow me to illustrate this:

I said:

Have you found a better option? I'm interested in better options.

You respond with:

Still don't know what you mean by "better." Also, what are we talking about? How existence... well, exists? Why is it better for you to believe in a god or gods?

I respond with:

It is better for me to believe in god(s) because the universe itself would be better if it contained god(s). I always believe in the better option, remember? I see no benefits to a lack of gods and I see incalculable benefits to their inclusion. Better. Regular old better.

You respond with:

So essentially... anything you don't know the answer to you just "believe exists" as you see fit. I see. It would be wonderful if that worked in reality, but it doesn't. (IE. I can't believe that my sandwich is ice cream, therefore it becomes ice cream.)

I respond with:

Really? It doesn't work that way? How many times have you tried to turn your sandwich into ice cream whilst simultaneously believing it was possible to do so? Or is it safe to say that you don't (and could never) believe that it was possible and are therefore incapable of making that statement beyond the speculative?
Not that it really matters. I never said anything like that. How about a little fire, Scarecrow? Or should I say Straw Man?

Again, each of the responses included a direct quote of the proceeding message. I think its you who may be losing track of the conversation.

As for the straw man:

"Its better to believe in god(s) because the universe itself is better with god(s)."

Is functionally equivalent to:

"It would be better to believe my sandwich is an ice cream, because the sandwich would be better if it was ice cream."

However that isn't what you said. What you said was:
"(IE. I can't believe that my sandwich is ice cream, therefore it becomes ice cream.)"

See any difference there? I'll tell you. The difference is the one in parentheses is a straw man argument since I never said anything like that.

 

[Pegg]

Hello!

For anyone who's theistic, I'd like to hear what you believe in, and why. This meaning that I'm curious about what your theistic views are that you believe, and for what reasons you believe in them. I'd prefer you don't link me a Google or Wikipedia page if you can avoid it. I'd like to get personal accounts.

As I'll most likely have questions and I'm opening this to all religions, I've posted this in the "Debate" forum.

The presence of something that changes the way you think and makes some fundamentalists pretend that some basic things in our reality don't exist when they clearly do intrigues me. I'd like to know how you've come to this process and way of thinking. It must be something life-changing and powerful for you to have such strong feelings, regard, and firmness in what you know. So, I welcome you to share it with me.

Thanks in advance!

Hi and welcome to the forum.

My religion has caused me to change the way I view the world. I believe that mankind as a whole are not leading the lives God wants us to lead. Our understanding of the bible reveals that mankind are living in opposition to Gods will and purpose for us and until we turn to God and begin to live in harmony with his laws,the earth and nature, we will only end up destroying ourselves and our planet.

However, we are awaiting a time in the near future when God will intervene in mankinds affairs and he will take down all that we've built in order to ensure his earth is looked after properly by those who commit themselves to work with him.

 

[Vadergirl123]

You believe these things because a book told you?

When a book is true than yeah I believe it haha or when there's no reason to beleive what it's saying is false

While books are an excellent resource, I wouldn't 100% trust that they're true automatically.

Neither would I

What is this sin you talk of?

Sin is anything you say, think, or do that goes against what God says.

Why would such a God allow such an entity called sin to exist?

Originally God created everything as, "very good" or without sin, but as I said in my post Adam chose to go against what God said and brought it into the world

Why am I, (as listed in your "we") destined for a place called Hell?

Everyone who sins is, so if you've sinned then you're destined for it. This is because
when we sin against an infinite God and all sin is oriented toward God, then we accumulate an infinite debt.

Where is Hell?

I don't know the exact location.

Why not just abolish sin instead of sending his son to die on a cross?

Alot of people ask that, but I don't think they really understand what they're asking. If God destroyed our ability to say, think, or do anything that went against him. We'd be almost like robots.

I've never experienced these things, could you elaborate more?

What do you mean "Experience?" And elaborate how?

Also, what other books have you read, by chance? I cringe to try to assess what conflicting things you believe in if you trust the word of every book you read.

I dont haha If I did I would be a very interesting person indeed, and if you mean religious books it's just the Bible. Although I've read some verses out of others.

 

[Muffled]

Hello!

For anyone who's theistic, I'd like to hear what you believe in, and why. This meaning that I'm curious about what your theistic views are that you believe, and for what reasons you believe in them. I'd prefer you don't link me a Google or Wikipedia page if you can avoid it. I'd like to get personal accounts.

As I'll most likely have questions and I'm opening this to all religions, I've posted this in the "Debate" forum.

The presence of something that changes the way you think and makes some fundamentalists pretend that some basic things in our reality don't exist when they clearly do intrigues me. I'd like to know how you've come to this process and way of thinking. It must be something life-changing and powerful for you to have such strong feelings, regard, and firmness in what you know. So, I welcome you to share it with me.

Thanks in advance!

Interesting choice of words. Back in the seventies there was a cultic group known as The Process. However itisn't something you come to but something you go through.

1. I was taght the Bible in sunday school. From that I developed a childlike belief in God.

2. I became angry with God because of the evil in the world.

3. I contemplated a serious sin and recognized it called out to God for salvation. After God saved me from myself, He asked me if I were part of the problem or part of the solution to sin. I made a decision to be part of the solution.

4. I recognized that I could not go to God because I was a sinner. A sermon on going to God just as I am changed that view.

5. I had my eyes opened to spiritual truth through a Bible passage that became a "Rama" (a word that God lifts out of the mudane into holiness) for me. At that point I received Jesus as my Savior.

6. For many years Jesus worked behind the scenes for me but He didn't have much direct power in my life. I went to a pentacostal meeting to receive the gift of tongues (which I did) and found that Jesus could be my daily guide.

7. Somehwere along the line I found that I could have Jesus in me as the spirit speaking and thinking.

 

[waitasec]

Interesting choice of words. Back in the seventies there was a cultic group known as The Process. However itisn't something you come to but something you go through.

1. I was taght the Bible in sunday school. From that I developed a childlike belief in God.

2. I became angry with God because of the evil in the world.

3. I contemplated a serious sin and recognized it called out to God for salvation. After God saved me from myself, He asked me if I were part of the problem or part of the solution to sin. I made a decision to be part of the solution.

4. I recognized that I could not go to God because I was a sinner. A sermon on going to God just as I am changed that view.

5. I had my eyes opened to spiritual truth through a Bible passage that became a "Rama" (a word that God lifts out of the mudane into holiness) for me. At that point I received Jesus as my Savior.

6. For many years Jesus worked behind the scenes for me but He didn't have much direct power in my life. I went to a pentacostal meeting to receive the gift of tongues (which I did) and found that Jesus could be my daily guide.

7. Somehwere along the line I found that I could have Jesus in me as the spirit speaking and thinking.

that is impossible.
the sinner cannot recognize sin

 

[ChristineES]

Hello!

For anyone who's theistic, I'd like to hear what you believe in, and why. This meaning that I'm curious about what your theistic views are that you believe, and for what reasons you believe in them. I'd prefer you don't link me a Google or Wikipedia page if you can avoid it. I'd like to get personal accounts.

As I'll most likely have questions and I'm opening this to all religions, I've posted this in the "Debate" forum.

The presence of something that changes the way you think and makes some fundamentalists pretend that some basic things in our reality don't exist when they clearly do intrigues me. I'd like to know how you've come to this process and way of thinking. It must be something life-changing and powerful for you to have such strong feelings, regard, and firmness in what you know. So, I welcome you to share it with me.

Thanks in advance!

I am sure you've heard too much about my faith, but...

I am a "Follower of Yehoshua (Y'shua, Yeshua, Jesus), aka a Christian. I have Jewish ancestry, but since my great grandfather was an atheist and my great grandmother converted to who knows what, I don't know much about that. As for "basic" Christian tenets, I am not sure where I stand on some of those- I have a bit of trouble with the trinity (I have a thread about it in same faith debates). I believe in some of what other Christians believe in, but I believe a bit differently in others. I don't believe in a literal, fiery hell- but a "separation from God". "Fire" in the book of Isaiah is used as a term for purification- so anything to do with fire can be "purification" but I don't know that for sure or anything else. I have read the New Testament many times and in many translations- so I get new ideas- which may be frowned upon from some Christians. I also have read all of the books in the OT at least once and also in different translations. Finally, I became a Christians about six months before I ever went to any Church service, so my idea of Christianity may be somewhat different that others- maybe. I follow to the best of my ability Jesus' commands- Love God, Love your neighbor, love your siblings in Jesus, love your enemies, don't condemn, look at yourself (when judging) rather than looking at others, etc. I sometimes fail, but I keep going.
Sorry that is so long.

 

[ChristineES]

that is impossible.
the sinner cannot recognize sin

I've never heard that before.