Religion Is A Pop-Culture

[Ekimklaw]

Avatar's "contradictions"

Oh my... what a can of worms we've opened here. When I asked you for a contradiction, you chose this (of all the many you say infest the Bible). The age old "thou shalt not kill", yet people are killed argument. I'm sorry Avatar, but this is NOT a contradiction.

One red-flag is all the elipses in your post. The elipse is the surest sign of taking things out of context!

Regardless, lets have a look at your "contradictions".


==============================================
Avatar wrote:
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."
==============================================


Since all of the quotes below are to be measured by the quote above it is neccessary that we understand the above quote. As Xev alertly and rightly pointed out, the above commandment translated "thou shalt not kill" in the King James version means "Do not murder anyone". The second quote means "Anyone who murders anyone should be put to death". This refers to capital punishment. This is still done.


Now to your suggested contradictions to the above scriptures.

==============================================
Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
==============================================


The Isrealites had done a great sin. They had rejected God and began worshipping an Idol. God dealt very severely with his chosen people the Isrealites. It was understood by all, that idolatry and drunken revelry was prohibited. At that time, it was punishable by death.

Look at verse 26: "So [Moses] stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the Lord , come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him."

Moses gave them one last chance to repent and turn away from their sins. Only the Levites rallied to him. The others refused and so they were punished. this is not a case of murder. This is a case of God justly purifying his chosen people.

I suggest you read the whole chapter.


==============================================
I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
==============================================


You left off some important information. The whole verse says:

"But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they had looked into the ark of the Lord . The people mourned because of the heavy blow the Lord had dealt them."

It was made clear that NO ONE was to look into or touch the ark. These 70 men flagrantly disobeyed, and were punished severely. Again this has nothing to do with murder.


==============================================
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
==============================================


Why did this happen? Because the Amalekites "waylaid [the Israelites] as they came up from Egypt."

Like a man who protects his home and family, God protected his people. That means punishing those who attacked them for no reason at all.


==============================================
Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
==============================================


Under the old covenant "breaking the sabbath" was punishable by death. It was known. This man brazenly disobeyed and according to Mosaic Law (which is no longer in place) he was stoned to death. It is sad. But God meant business. had he shown his people a soft hand at that time they would have never survived as a unique people. They would have all done whatever they wanted. this was not in God's plan, and he punished law breakers severely. This was during the OLD COVENANT.

When Jesus came, he ushered in the NEW COVENANT which provided grace to sinners, instead of severe punishment.


==============================================
Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."
==============================================


Why did this happen? "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God." So they were punished as an example to other nations. Again this is all under the OLD Covenant. Which has now been replaced by the NEW Covenant.

No contradictions.

Try again...

-Mike

 

[notme2000]

Believe it or not this thread started with Notme (myself), Empty Dragon (a friend) and Xev (someone we met on here) in a very good debate. Now all it's become is proving certain passages of the bible wrong, which is boring and easy. So before you state that this is a horribe debate, think of how it got there.

 

[Tiassa]

Cool enough

I do see the interesting debate going on in the early goings, but I tend to think of it as balbutive, but I won't deny its value.

Atheism as a search for truth? While I have no doubt that you could, if you put your mind to it, explain that coherently, the unfortunate thing is that at the end I would have to point you back to our own atheists here at Sciforums who got upset when people tried to make of atheism more than it is.

Mostly, Notme, I'm responding directly to your invitation. It's not that it's a horrible debate, but I feel like you lied when you said there was intelligent debate going on over here. If you had been more forthright in the other topic I wouldn't even have ventured in here in the first place. As it is, I'm happy to leave Xev, Avatar, Mike, and your various personas to deal with it.

Like I said, it's not worth two cents to anyone for me to stick around this topic. One more note to put out and then I'm out of this topic. But I figured I might as well ask where that intelligent debate you advertised is.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Heavens, Mike ... I know

Hey we can't be at the top of our game every time...

Yeah, I know ... quite literally, I'm merely jabbing at someone who directed me here for the intelligent debate. It's a longer story than is worth telling, which is funny since it's a very short tale.

I called the debate balbutive in a prior post. That's a little strong, but I do feel like some of our posters are about to rehash a very silly part of what was an ugly debate for the lot of us not too long ago. With all the larger, better ideas to debate out there ... I'm having a BT/DT moment as I read through it.

And possibly Democrats.

Perhaps, perhaps. But I would have guessed Republicans since the left wing, the communal ideas in politics, are learned and the right wing, the selfish ideas in politics, are more inherent to natural behavior. What baby, coming out of the womb, really wants to share?

Sharing is generally an acquired behavior.

thanx much,
Tiassa

PS--I shall be true to my word and withdraw from this debate. Notme2000, if I await you at all, it will be in the other topic.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Mr. I want an intelligent debate

Originally posted by notme2000
I have heard this argument many times, often from someone who couldn't convince me there was a God.

Is it even possible to convince you there is a God? Why don't you elaborate on what "proof" you require?

If anyone is convinced of God through debating on a forum, such a "convinced belief" is quixotic.

I'm sorry you couldn't convince me there is a God.

Why are you saying you are "sorry" when there it is supererogatory to say so?

Or are you just trying to sound disparaging?

I'm not commited to the idea of there not being a God, I am commited to truth.

What is this "truth" you seek?

And like it or not, I have mass amounts of evidence that there is not a God and not one bit that supports a God.

Do not mix in "emotions" with any debate. The phrase "like it or not" often refers to one's emotions. I thought this was an intellectual debate? :bugeye:

Mass amounts of evidence? On what reference? To the knowledge you hold in the entire history of mankind and the *universe*?

Would you then consider this as a "mass amount" of evidence?

And even if I were to recieve evidence of a God, I doubt it would be enough evidence to contradict all the evidence I have stating otherwise.

So in other words...what would take you to believe? What do you deem "evidence of God"?

If you were to receive evidence of anything, would you not accept it?

So you can see, to someone who is trying to prove God's existence to me, I would be quite frustrating, because I'd be asking for at least as much evidence of a God as I have that there isn't one. And I don't think any theists can deliver that.

I think it is a waste of time to prove any belief to another. I believe in individual responsibility.

And as for Athiesm being a new religion, that is not true. Every religion starts with the assumption of total knowledge. They have a book, wether it be the bible, tora, whatever, that tells them everything they need to know. Athiesm starts with the assumption of zero knowledge. We acknowledge the fact that we are born in to this world not knowing anything, and we look around us and make what we can with it.

Agnostic would be the more suitable term of "not knowing anything." Atheism serves as an identification of "I don't believe in God." I've been through this argument many times and do not wish to go through it again.

Science is the opposite of religion. Science teaches us to make observations, develop a hypothesis, then develop an experiment to test this hypothesis. If the experiment succeeds, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory. If the experiment fails, the knowledge gained during that experiment can be used to develop a new hypothesis, and the process begins again. As our ability to observe the world around us advances, so too does our scientific knowledge.

I am a non-denominational free-thinking theist (don't believe in "organized religion and its dogma"), so we are on par with this thinking.

Anyway in 1859 Charles Darwin systematized and popularized the theory of biological evolution, ironically seizing on Malthus's theory of limited resources to formulate a vision of continual evolution and change. By the 1860s, despite continued religious opposition, the evolutionary and historical approaches in the sciences had become dominant, as had the related idea of human progress. The result and I will emphasize, was not a victory of science over religion but a SEPARATION of science and religion.

Science does not conform to religion, religion conforms to science.

And as Galileo said, "Religion teaches men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

So to rule out science because "religion said so" is absurd and frivolous to the greatest extremities.

In summation to what you said, science is NOT the opposite of religion, that is an inaccurate statement at best. They are merely seperate to one another.

So you see, we do not have the same amount of faith in there not being a God as someone has faith that there is a God. All we do is work for the truth, and we realize we have no say in what the final truth is.

"We" signifies the speaker, who are these speakers? You are speaking for all atheists or what?

Depends on what you limit it to. If you limit it to the current knowledge we possess, then your argument is somewhat accurate. But if you limit on the total knowledge of everything that is possible to learn, your argument is indubitably inaccurate.

btw, what "intelligent debate"? Why not start it in your other thread?

 

[notme2000]

I couldn't agree more, I don't bother with my two cents here either. I left for 2 days, and when I came back this conversation had been taken over by 2 people apparantly in love with each other on happy pills...

 

[notme2000]

Ooh! An intelligent post!

What is this "truth" you seek?

That's just the thing, I have no ideal truth. There is no specific truth other than the one that it. Whatever evidence leads me to believe is what I believe until evidence states otherwise.

Do not mix in "emotions" with any debate. The phrase "like it or not" often refers to one's emotions. I thought this was an intellectual debate?

That's exactly what I do, leave emotions out of it. As much as I'd want to see my lost loved ones again once I die, as much as I'd love for there to be a heaven, etc... I realize it's extremely improbable.

Mass amounts of evidence? On what reference? To the knowledge you hold in the entire history of mankind and the *universe*?

As oposed to the amount of evidence supporting God's existence, yes.

So in other words...what would take you to believe? What do you deem "evidence of God"? If you were to receive evidence of anything, would you not accept it?

Bingo, if I had enough evidence to suggest this entire universe were no more than some higher being's lab experiment, I'd believe it. Whatever the evidence points to, whatever checks out.

I think it is a waste of time to prove any belief to another. I believe in individual responsibility.

I love when people try to prove me wrong... Because they may be right... I was a Christian once too... I did not rebel against God or anything, it just became aparant it was not true.

Agnostic would be the more suitable term of "not knowing anything." Atheism serves as an identification of "I don't believe in God."

I suppose that is true... But most athiests are only athiests until evidence changes that... And it never has.

The result and I will emphasize, was not a victory of science over religion but a SEPARATION of science and religion.

VERY good point!!! See, this is why debating is useful, I just learnt something.

btw, what "intelligent debate"? Why not start on in your other thread?

Boy have I come to regret that thread, lol...

Any way, thank you kindly for the input! Your intelligent posts are what keeps a debate intelligent.

 

[firdroirich]

"Iam the master of my fate "

It just seems to me like the religious want believers & the atheists want applause for not believing, in this I mean people in this forum - the world at large I'll accept your guess if you'll accept mine.
The focus here is not wrong, right, truth, belief etc nor the colourful words you can conjour for or against whichever "side" you're on - for in reality this has taken sides - the very basis of confrontation. On one side the all-knowing wielders of knowledge & on the other the all-powerful wielders of miracles - both with TRUTH on their side. Why can't neither be content with just 1 person in their ranks i.e. YOU, why should we ALL be encompassed into your wide waste of time? It is these things that perpetuate the fact that more wars are fought over religion than any other thing in history. Don't get me wrong I love a good debate myself on any topic, only that this 1 is a debate against yourself, I reckon. I suppose the course of human existence changed the day a single man joined with others for on that day the one had to be subdued to the will of the other.

"Iam the master of my fate & the captain of my soul" , so what I think of all this is between who I think Iam who I'll discover myself to be, & who I really am(schizo deluxe).


The musings of a fence-sitter. Not to be taken seriously

 

[notme2000]

Another very good point.

 

[Jan Ardena]

EMPTY DRAGON

Then would each athiest believe a different a different philosophy or the same Dogma.

Basically the same, the rules are do what you like, how you like when you like, it is something like ancient babylon. The god of these types of societies is money, because money can get you things. The more money the more sense of power, the more gratification of senses.

Philosophy: eat drink and be merry, you only get one life!!!!!

It is a very simple religion.



Notme 2000

I have heard this argument many times, often from someone who couldn't convince me there was a God. I'm sorry you couldn't convince me there is a God.

If you have evidence that a god does not exist, why should you wished to be convinced?

And like it or not, I have mass amounts of evidence that there is not a God and not one bit that supports a God.

Hey!!! Am I psychic or what?

And even if I were to recieve evidence of a God, I doubt it would be enough evidence to contradict all the evidence I have stating otherwise.

You just don’t get it, do ya?

So you can see, to someone who is trying to prove God's existence to me, I would be quite frustrating, because I'd be asking for at least as much evidence of a God as I have that there isn't one.

OK, start talking, lets see this evidence.

Athiesm starts with the assumption of zero knowledge.

Are you for real?????

We acknowledge the fact that we are born in to this world not knowing anything, and we look around us and make what we can with it.

What have you made with it, thus far?

Science is the opposite of religion.

Try telling that to Newton and Einstein.

Science teaches us to make observations,

Is science an entity?
Could you show me an instance where science actually teaches?

The development of the microscope dramatically increased our understanding of biology.

So people who believe in God, have no concept of science, or have not contributed to scientific descovery?

So you see, we do not have the same amount of faith in there not being a God as someone has faith that there is a God.

Oh!! I see.

All we do is work for the truth, and we realize we have no say in what the final truth is.

We?
You don’t sound like a scientist to me.
You see, I set my standards from the greats, Newton and Einstein............... and your like………no where near…..man!!!!

Soz!

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[notme2000]

If you have evidence that a god does not exist, why should you wished to be convinced?

Because a universe with a God sounds alot better to me, don't you think? The good get rewarded, the evil punished, there is a heaven, I get to see my lost loved ones, etc... I wish there was a God, but I'm not willing to let it cloud my judgement.

Hey!!! Am I psychic or what?

I don't get it, but it was probably just an insult or jab, which is no matter to me.

You just don’t get it, do ya?

Nope, not at all. The idea of believing something against all odds escapes me. I suppose I am probably missing out big time. Ignorance is bliss... And believing that I will get to sit in heaven on all the pretty clouds sounds pretty blissful to me...

OK, start talking, lets see this evidence.

We have mapped the universe to great legnths and have not found any bit of evidence of him, which in itself is evidence against him. Half a million things in the bible don't check out, but I suppose that really isn't evidence against a God, just christianity, miracles are explained scientifically every day, there is no supreme justice, there is no purely good or purely evil people, people have been revived after being dead for over an hour... How did their "soul" know they were going to be saved? But mainly, the more we explain the less chance there is of a God existing... That's the one that I find really hard to get past.

Are you for real?????

Yes, elaborate more in question, and I will elaborate more in answer.

What have you made with it, thus far?

That there is no devine meaning to life. But that does not mean life is meaningless, just that we must give meaning to our lives ourselves... If you do that through a God, power to you. Athiests are often concidered cynical... Cynicism is often concidered realistic. At first it was all very depressing, but I am still new at this athiesm thing. Hell, I'm still new at this life thing, I'm only 18. But I'm used to it now, and don't find it depressing anymore... Infact, I find it quite inspiring that through no meaning or purpose we all came to exist... That is a true miracle, because it happened by itself.

Try telling that to Newton and Einstein.

Through the last post from firdroirich I have come to realize religion is not oposite of science... Something completely seperate. My bad.

Is science an entity?
Could you show me an instance where science actually teaches?

By that I meant the existence of science. Science has taught us objectiveness as religion has taught us faith.

So people who believe in God, have no concept of science, or have not contributed to scientific descovery?

When did I say that?

Oh!! I see.

Come on, make me think here...

We? You don’t sound like a scientist to me. You see, I set my standards from the greats, Newton and Einstein............... and your like………no where near…..man!!!!

We, athiests. Never said I was anything like Einstein or Newton. But in the same respect, you are nowhere near either. I'm just making the most out of what I got, how bout you?

 

[Jenyar]

How to believe

Hi everybody. This is my first post. I'm glad I found a place where everybody can have an opinion and people are actually willing to talk about it.

First of all: I'm a Christian (*closes eyes and waits for all the prejudice to settle*). Now, that may make me biased in a certain way (well...because I've decided to accept God...but more on that later). But personally I think I would have made a great atheist. My girlfriend just left me because she thought that the concept of sin is silly and it's much less naive to live in reality- where you have to make your own choices about what is right and wrong (and where you need proof to make any decision - whether it is to believe in God, UFO's, ghosts or the livelyhood of Schrodinger's cat). So I have had first-hand experience of being singled out for my beliefs. I also think that more people would have believed in God if it weren't for some Christians, which leads me to one point:

Just as you can't judge atheists or anybody for what they believe or don't believe in, you can't judge Christians for believing in God while still being just as human as everybody else, i.e. you can't judge them according to their own 'laws' if you don't believe in those laws yourself. Christians are people who have been given a concept of 'sin', an awareness that they have 'sin', and there for anybody to see: the destructive power of sin. (btw. non-Christians of course have morals, ethics, and laws, but they do they include the order to love or, in fact, to do anything?)

I can go on for hours as you can see ;-) Please don't tear me apart just yet. I'm open to discussion (you don't believe me do you?). I don't think it is POSSIBLE to believe in God. The fact that some people can is a miracle ;-)

OK. Give me your worst...
JR

 

[Jan Ardena]

notme 2000....

Because a universe with a God sounds alot better to me, don't you think? The good get rewarded, the evil punished, there is a heaven, I get to see my lost loved ones, etc... I wish there was a God, but I'm not willing to let it cloud my judgement.

Do you think that is why people believe in God?

I don't get it, but it was probably just an insult or jab, which is no matter to me.

You want to be “convinced” there is a god, but at the same time you have evidence that a god does not exist. It is very predictable.

And believing that I will get to sit in heaven on all the pretty clouds sounds pretty blissful to me...

Like I said, you just don’t get it.
If you want to talk about God, heaven and spirituality in general, then at least have some idea of what these are.

The development of the microscope dramatically increased our understanding of biology.

But it cannot stop old age, disease or death.

Come on, make me think here...

Why are you wasting your energy on this a “religion” forum?
Would you spend time on a “pink unicorn with purple spots” forum?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jenyar......

How to believe
Hi everybody.

Hi Jenyar, and welcome.

This is my first post. I'm glad I found a place where everybody can have an opinion and people are actually willing to talk about it.

Mmmmmmmm…………..??????????

Errrrr......look we got Mr. Smilies....

But personally I think I would have made a great atheist.

What sort of effort does it take to be a “great atheist?”

I also think that more people would have believed in God if it weren't for some Christians, which leads me to one point:

Please elaborate!

you can't judge Christians for believing in God

Oh! There are some folk who will try.


Christians are people who have been given a concept of 'sin', an awareness that they have 'sin', and there for anybody to see: the destructive power of sin.

Do you think this concept is given only to Christians?

Why is this (if your answer is yes)?


(btw. non-Christians of course have morals, ethics, and laws,

Why do you differentiate between Christian and non-Christian.?

I don't think it is POSSIBLE to believe in God. The fact that some people can is a miracle ;-)

How is it that you are a Christian but don’t believe in God.?
The mind boggles!!

To get Mr. Smilie, miss out the hyphon.

OK. Give me your worst...

Grrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!
What, no scientific evidence, get thee behind me illogical person.

Hope that wasn’t too harsh.

Love

Jan

Ardena.

 

[notme2000]

First of all, Jan, for leaving insults out of your last post I have gained much respect, and concider your post much more seriously.

Do you think that is why people believe in God?

I believe that was the initial reason, which in turn spawned off thousand of other reasons. But I do believe that is the root of it all, not the only reason though. Evidence: most religions have the same BASIC beliefs... Good are rewarded, evil punished, there is a continuance of the "soul" after death, etc... Religion as a whole always fills the same voids in our lives... One could also argue, however, the similarities in religions are evidence of one true God...

You want to be “convinced” there is a god, but at the same time you have evidence that a god does not exist. It is very predictable.

Also likely...

Like I said, you just don’t get it. If you want to talk about God, heaven and spirituality in general, then at least have some idea of what these are.

You are right again. Even when I was a Christian I never really believed in God, just never questioned it. But once I did, I immediately realized it didn't make sence. I wasn't raised christian, but in a generally christian/catholic society, ended up as one. But I think by not being raised in a religious household, I stayed in that neutral state, ie. athiesm. And once I was ready to question God, I did. This is the answer I have gotten to. But I do want to know what God, heaven and spirituality is really about, it would help me to better understand theists, and who knows, maybe something would click and it'd all make sence to me! So please explain.

But it cannot stop old age, disease or death.

Not the microscope. Medicine and new discoveries in healthy eating prolongs our life expectancy year by year. Once upon a time 30 was concidered old age. We have found cures for countless diseases, though more keep showing up, often from our own devices. And I do believe it MAY be possible to stop death, in it's natural form, but that is just a theory with very little evidence, so I don't blame you if you doubt it.

Why are you wasting your energy on this a “religion” forum?

It interests me. I'm not here to insult anyone. If I were to exclude theists from my life, I'd be pretty lonely. Look forward to your reply!

 

[Tiassa]

Essentially, yes

I believe that was the initial reason, which in turn spawned off thousand of other reasons. But I do believe that is the root of it all, not the only reason though. Evidence: most religions have the same BASIC beliefs... Good are rewarded, evil punished, there is a continuance of the "soul" after death, etc... Religion as a whole always fills the same voids in our lives... One could also argue, however, the similarities in religions are evidence of one true God...

You are, essentially, right on the mark with that, Notme2000.

I would propose the following, though: It is evidence of one True God that people have created.

We can probably (probably) agree that insofar as any of us can tell, people invent gods and not vice-versa?

I'm in. I just don't want to presume your position.

But that, essentially, is why religions still have importance. The whole of what people hope for transcends mundane characterization, and so they compress and mythicize it. From that process come gods, at least, as well as a few other strange ideas among humanity, such as political boundaries (as opposed to natural geographic boundaries) and such myths as patriotism.

In terms of religions, though, the common aspects seek--if we bear in mind that people create gods--common values among diverse people. In fact, what I'm starting to look at now--possibly a ten-year undertaking--is the degree of impact localized factors (climate, geography, economy, demographics) have on the development of specific religious ideas. That is, if it turns out that the common aspects of religion hint toward common human aspirations, what about being who and where you are affects the expression of that? Why, for instance, Buddhism where there are Buddhists, Christians where there are Christians, Hindus where there are Hindus, and Muslims where there are Muslims? What forces of nature and history affect the conceptual development?

In religions we see essentially a social mass-expression of values. These things are good, those are bad, so to speak. A.L. Basham, in Classical Hinduism (Boston: Beacon, 1989) notes that the diverse presence of Agni (fire-god) in lightning, the hearth, the wilderness, and so forth--the many manifestations of fire familiar to the community--may have lent to early speculation about the nature of gods, the singularity of God, and so forth. That is, conditions in the community allowed or even encouraged deeper speculative thought about natural mysteries.

So in that sense, I think it is possible to establish that the common aspects of diverse religions aspire toward one true something, but what that something turns out to be is its own mystery.

I guess it's a matter of chicken and egg.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Jenyar]

Thanks Jan. I might get the hang of it some day

1. As I see it - it takes courage to be play devil's advocate. I just like to think myself as being an atheist, and then play 'God's advocate'. It takes at least some openmindedness.

2.Which is why poeple look at some Christians and say: if that is a Christian, I don't want to be one.

3.There will always be people who are willing to be right without accepting the possibility of being wrong- they don't realise that you can have a part of the truth and a part of a lie in one package.

4.Do you think only Christians have sin? As I have it, they concept of sin comes from the idea of doing something against God's Will, that leads you away from him, that makes you 'guilty'.

5.That's why I wanted to differentiate. Becuase no only Christians can be 'guilty', even in their own eyes. But for Christians, guilt is more than in their own eyes (how can you do what's right if nobody tells or shows you what is right).

6.I DO believe in God. I was merely saying that I'm looking at that rift called 'doubt' from the other side. You know,
after I had made the 'leap of faith'. It's quite an interesting perspective, and I enjoy philosophising about it.

If the question of belief is a problem, wouldn't it be easier to solve it from both sides? If it isn't, then no amount of talking will make a difference anyway, unless it changes your life. Christianity changed my life, but atheism didn't change any of my friends' lives (just made it more bearable, I think). I would like to hear some "witnesses of atheism" as well, you know. Otherwise I would just be another 'I'm right and you're wrong' person, which I'm not.

 

[notme2000]

Jenyar, that's true, I am an athiest and it didn't change my life. I ask, what does that mean? Becoming an athiest only means accepting that I know next to nothing about the universe I'm in, while being a christian genereally means all the big questions are answered. So you can see why religion is life-changing and athiesm is generally not.

 

[Jan Ardena]

notme2000.......

I believe that was the initial reason, which in turn spawned off thousand of other reasons.

How have you come to believe this?

Evidence: most religions have the same BASIC beliefs... Good are rewarded, evil punished,[/I

Isn’t that the same belief in a godless/secular society?

If you work well at school, you get rewarded, if you kill somebody you get punished.

] there is a continuance of the "soul" after death, etc...

Try not to think of the soul as a separate part of yourself, see it as yourself. A good example is clothes, you are not the clothes you wear, but when you are wearing them, they move exactly with the body, but when the clothes become old and worn, you discard them and get new ones. The body is like clothes.

The soul on the other hand, is spiritual, it is not affected by the laws which affect the body. Whether or not you believe that, doesn’t really matter, it is actually the correct way to view the soul (as told by authorities), if you can understand that, then I guarantee your understanding of religion will improve.

Religion as a whole always fills the same voids in our lives... One could also argue, however, the similarities in religions are evidence of one true God...

That is not the point of real religion, real religion is education, it teaches one to understand the “self” in relation to God.

You want to be “convinced” there is a god, but at the same time you have evidence that a god does not exist. It is very predictable.


Also likely...

Then what good is your so-called evidence?
Do you think everything is going to come good in your lifetime, why you hang on to this unseen, unknown evidense?

You are right again. Even when I was a Christian I never really believed in God, just never questioned it.

A Christian is someone who follows in the footsteps of Lord Jesus Christ, so how can you not believe in God, when Jesus believes in God. The first thing a Christian must do is surrender to Jesus, otherwise it is just a poppy-show business.
An example….. I wish to be a mechanic, but then I choose to concoct my own laws and theories, because I don’t want to follow the example laid down by people who follow the laws of mechanics.
How do you think I would fare?

But I think by not being raised in a religious household, I stayed in that neutral state, ie. athiesm.

So you think you are neutral, as I said religion is education. If you never went to school, learned to read or write, do you think your position would be neutral?

But I do want to know what God, heaven and spirituality is really about, it would help me to better understand theists, and who knows, maybe something would click and it'd all make sence to me! So please explain.

In short……. God is a person, in all scriptures there are hints of this, some more obvious than others. He is the Supreme Being, that means no one is equal to or greater than Him. Everything emanates from Him, He is the cause of everything. He is pure spirit therefore has no beginning or end. He is the sum total of everything.

The material world is split into 3, sometimes known as the 3 worlds, upper (heavenly) middle (earthly) and lower (hellish). In vedic literature it states that the topmost heavenly planet, populated by great sages who meditate on God constantly, it is called “satyaloka.” This is the planet where Jesus was supposed to have descended from. There, they don’t care for sensual pleasure, they spend all their time meditating and lovingly serving God and His devotess. They can travel as they like, wherever they like.

As you descend further, the heavenly planets become more places for pure sense gratification, thousands of times more pleasurable than we can even imagine, the duration of life is thousands and thousands of our years, but 100 of their years, and as you descend more you enter into the middle system, which is where we are, in this life we have some heavenly comforts, but in general not enough to become complacent as in the upper regions. We also have some hellish unpleasantries.
As you descend further life becomes more dull and ignorant as we enter into the hellish regions.

This is a very very basic account of the order of the universe, which is stipulated (to some degree or other) in all religious scripture.

Medicine and new discoveries in healthy eating prolongs our life expectancy year by year.

But we still grow old, it cannot stop the ageing process. Anxiety comes when people start to lose their youth and lustre, they will only be truly satisfied when the ageing process stops.

Once upon a time 30 was concidered old age.

But that doesn’t make anything better, people are more anxious than ever.

We have found cures for countless diseases, though more keep showing up, often from our own devices.

But can science stop disease, period?
If it cannot do these things, then what is its use outside of sense extentions?

And I do believe it MAY be possible to stop death, in it's natural form, but that is just a theory with very little evidence, so I don't blame you if you doubt it.

You say you believe, but you have little or no evidence, so in essence it can not be stopped, so you are being tricked by complete foolishness. Try and understand how modern science is nothing but a bluff.
My advice, follow in the footsteps of proper scientists whose only intention is to find out the reason why, not the modern ones who try and kill God in the minds of the innocent people by using simple tricks.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jenyar]

Not my experience

In fact. The big questions don't miraculously get answered when you start believing. I agree with the Jan - it's an education. Could you imagine quantum physics when you were 8? Have you tried studying it? Quite mind-blowing stuff actually. But it doesn't make things work differently now that you know it. Everything stays the same. Except yourself.

That, to me, is what makes it worth it. The fact that people could see that - "Hey, something's changed! What was it? Did you get laid or what?" The challenge of Christianity is not in being convinced (that's easy - you just have to realise that you know nothing, and then begin asking what it is you don't know), but being convincing. You can't fake it. Obeying the law - biblical and governmental and social - like a robot convinces no-one, and only makes you feel trapped and oppressed. The freedom I experience is one of a way of thinking that breathes light and air into a small box. It's the kind of freedom a bird has: everybody can see for themselves a bird can't reach outer space or swim underwater, but tell that bird it's not free. It won't understand, might try contemplating it for a moment, and then fly wherever it wants to go.

To extend the metaphor: there are still storms and winds and hardships, and questions - they are just as bad as ever, just as hard to understand, but that freedom is not connected to your circumstances. You especially realise it when you are at your worst. Think about it: When you have nothing left, does scienctific proof matter, does it matter whether the earth is round or flat? Things come into perspective, the tangible difference at this point is that suicide seems on the other side of the option list. No scientist could prove to you that you need to live, but God could.