who will you worship God or Satan?

[The Blue Knight]

Whatever man. I say just live and let live. If you don't like religion or religious people no one is going to force you to associate with it or them. But, that knife cuts both ways. If people want to keep their beliefs they're not harming anyone by doing so.

 

Thanks 49,000. I agree. I don't know why believers drive atheists over the edge? It seems strange to me that they get so caught up in this subject matter.

 

But This brings up a point that hit me at worship this morning where we talked about global missions and outreach. Our church has given $497,000 to a small village in Mozambique over five years according to the figures shared this morning. On top of that 2800 children were being sponsored by our church members through World Vision and they are hoping that the remaining 2000 children in that village can be sponsored by this latest drive effort. Of the 2800 children sponsored, our church members alone are giving $847,000 annually for the past five years to help these kids make it with food, clothing, shelter, etc.

 

My reason for bringing this up is that this is just our church accomplishing this and there are thousands of Christian Churches across the U.S. and other parts of the world helping with relief efforts.

 

While I'm not saying that atheists don't give of themselves, there is no atheistic, humanistic, or evolutionary organization that can accomplish anything close to what the Christian Church has done to aid their fellow man.

 

In summary, even if we (uneducated and uninformed Christians ) all believe in a God who doesn't exist as you assert, I guess the end result is, who cares if we are accomplishing so much.

[The Blue Knight]

they are harming, as long as we have elected governments.

 

why is western christianity at such odds with islam? is it so hard to accept that they have chosen islam over christianity? the bible is violent too, so what if they want to stone women to death for being accused of adultery, or impale people who convert from islam to something else? christians used to murder non christians too.

 

why can't you just accept their faith and let them murder whoever they want?

Here we go with the red herring arguments going back to that "violent Bible". I love the first comment. In other words, believe exactly as I believe if you want to have any rights . . . particularly the right to vote. That was somewhat revealing.

[UpwardForward]

they are harming, as long as we have elected governments.

 

 

 

why is western christianity at such odds with islam? is it so hard to accept that they have chosen islam over christianity? the bible is violent too, so what if they want to stone women to death for being accused of adultery, or impale people who convert from islam to something else? christians used to murder non christians too.

 

why can't you just accept their faith and let them murder whoever they want?

 

If we murder, there is a trial. That is one of the differences. Even people who murder in the name of what they consider righteousness, are brought to trial here.

 

Thanks for the reminder of the differences between so-called 'religions'. (A religion - Or a right to be barbaric?)

Edited June 10, 2012 by UpwardForward

[pureinheart]

Thanks 49,000. I agree. I don't know why believers drive atheists over the edge? It seems strange to me that they get so caught up in this subject matter.

 

 

so vehemently also at times, most of the time...

[Yamaha]

I don't know why believers drive atheists over the edge?

 

They see religion as harmful to society. They want to create a world where your belief system comes from government ( world government ) . They can't have people believing in a higher power if you want them to look to government for their salvation. So religion is an enemy to the world they envision. They mock, call them stupid, unenlightened, try to isolate and lay blame to religion so people will shun them. If you want people to follow you you dis-credit the one they follow.

[wuggle]

They see religion as harmful to society.

 

Agreed......

[pureinheart]

I am one of those who "dabbled" in the process of searching, it wasn't needed to dig too deep because it just didn't work for me. Kind of like a book or song that doesn't capture your attention enough to go further, skimming over the basics.

 

I was raised Catholic as a condition/request that my adoptive mother agreed to. She fulfilled her obligation to the fullest. She made sure I went to church and put me in a Catholic school. I am so grateful for that, although Catholism wasn't meant for me to stay in.

 

I was exposed to all different faiths/nonfaiths and when becoming a Christian, that in itself opened the door to get better understanding of various beliefs and such. I dug much deeper at that point and though the others weren't for me, I enjoyed/enjoy the wisdom and teachings, I get so much out of the "good stuff" that is taught, and it actually helps me with my own faith.

 

Concerning my own faith, I have seen the miracles and have been involved, used by God, to see the miracles in others...I just can't deny it.

 

Personally IMO the evidence is there in Creation and since I am not a historian, nor a walking concordance...most of my explanation is from experience and matters of the heart- faith.

 

Am I perfect...nope, am I one of God's most oneriest children... yep.

[fortyninethousand322]

I would question the existence of a soul at all. However the point I was going back to was the religious idea that it's somehow insulting to view humans as part of the rest of the animal kingdom, and that we are somehow "above" everything else. The consequence of this attitude is that we deserve special privileges, or we are entitled to do whatever we want with other animals as if they don't matter. I find that unjustifiable. Do you agree?

 

Yes and no. There are things that humans can do that could be argued are special privileges. For example having a pet dog or cat is not slavery. Keeping a human being in a similar arrangement would be slavery or kidnapping. Eating a cheeseburger is not akin to cannibalism. Etc.

 

Part of this has to do with the natural state of other animals in comparison to humans. Accidentally trespass on your neighbor's lawn he's not likely to kill you for it (he might get mad depending on the circumstances though). Walk through a bear's territory and you'll get mauled to death.

 

That doesn't mean we can do whatever we want to animals though. Having a dog fighting ring is bad. Killing kittens on a Saturday night is also bad. Etc.

 

Maybe a fine line but it's a line nonetheless.

[The Blue Knight]

Completely agree.

 

But here is the nub of the problem to me, 'religous' people when asked the question who or what made everthing answer "God, who has no creator, and that is the end of the matter, all argument against this is irrelevant, you either have faith in this or not" . They profess 'certainty' in what any amount of common sense would indicate is a silly answer. But 'non religous' people answer "We dont' know, but we are going to keep on trying to figure it out".

 

I admire people who are not afraid to admit they don't know and don't limit their lives by sticking to a dogmatic world-view that even they can't explain any better than "you just have to believe".

First off, just for the record, I reject the idea that Christianity is a religion in the sense that we understand a religion. I understand why you use the term and why most of the world thinks of Christianity that way. The problem is that Jesus himself went after the Pharisees of his day for their "religiousity" and argued that God was looking for a "relationship" with mankind, not "religion." It is what makes Biblical Christianity unique.

 

The thing is whether you accept the big bang or intelligent design as the catalyst for the universes creation, the same problem results . . . who created whatever got this whole thing going? I accept the idea that God always was time eternal. He has no beginning and no end. But "God" is exceptionally difficult for our minds to comprehend because we can't possibly fathom a being that had no beginning or no ending.

 

The "first cause" issue is what you're questioning. Better answered here than my much less technical answer.

 

The First Cause Argument

[The Blue Knight]

They see religion as harmful to society. They want to create a world where your belief system comes from government ( world government ) . They can't have people believing in a higher power if you want them to look to government for their salvation. So religion is an enemy to the world they envision. They mock, call them stupid, unenlightened, try to isolate and lay blame to religion so people will shun them. If you want people to follow you you dis-credit the one they follow.

Yeah, that's a good answer and I think it's dead on Yamaha. And what's so funny is that the atheists, evolutionists, secularists, and humanists have managed to remove God from our schools now for decades and He's still around despite their best efforts to erase Him from our educational system.

[The Blue Knight]

No, you have sidestepped my entire argument. Again. You made an appeal to odds, and I showed you precisely how fatuous this is.

 

Perhaps it is time for you to get out of the kitchen, so to speak.

Not feeling a lot of heat as of yet Joe.

 

But the fact that you cannot answer the one plaguing question, which to me is the boldest evidence for atheists to contend with . . . how do you deal with those scientists who have come to embrace intelligent design or the God of the Bible despite their advanced educations / degrees, their years of work in their respective fields, and their previous atheistic beliefs? Some have even attempted to hold to a modified evolutionary view but they still acknowledge a creator.

[The Blue Knight]

In terms of numbers? The reason is blindingly obvious: atheists are a small minority. I've addressed this issue in another thread recently, so I won't go into too much detail but instead provide a short summary:

 

Most charity organisations, regardless of the religious opinions of its founder or current president, (Red Cross, for example) have staff and volunteers of all relgious persuasions, and are donated to theists and atheists alike. The same applies to nations, just because 70% of a nation's population is religious does not imply that the same percentage of charitable donations from its citiens are from religious people, or vice versa. Most donations are anonymous. In short, it's impossible to maintain the claim "we're the most generous!"

 

The company where I work sponsors a lot of community projects and charities. There's nothing religious about it, even if some of the people donating are.

 

I personally donate to religious and non-religious charities alike. My only concern is whether they get the job done.

 

Hamas also does a lot of charity work. But they also fund terrorism and cause a lot of harm. So it's never that clear cut. Until you can establish that there would be less charitable giving if people were not religious, this is a doubly invalid argument.

Joe, to compare modern-American Bible-based churches to Hamas or any form of radical Islam is really disingenuous. My point stands. Even if there is no God as you assert, the end result is a lot of good done in today's world even if it's in the name of God.

[thatone]

Quickjoe and i part ways on animals. I dont think they deserve our protection, i think life itself is selfish by nature. If testing a drug on a rabbit saves a human, screw the rabbit. But that isnt morality, just self preservation. If a monkey can divert a jaguar toward a wild pig and escape at the expense of both he'll do it too.

 

So no, i have no shame from eating a cow, if they knew how good prime rib is they'd run faster.

[The Blue Knight]

Joe wrote: It's because the word "religion" has a standard meaning, and Christianity fulfills it completely. It's you that is redefining words.

I'm redefining Biblical Christianity as a relationship because that's what it is, not unlike your relationship with those you consider family or friends. Religion is man's attempt to reach God. A relationship is God's attempt to reach man. But I'll grant you that few people know the difference. At times, even Christians fail to recognize it.

Firstly, why do you assume a "who" in the first place? This is your confirmation bias creeping in already. You've got a preconceived conclusion and you're trying to steer the argument there by any means necessary.

I don't deny that I have a bias. I looked at the evidence years ago and concluded the belief that I have today. I reached that conclusion objectively because at that time I wasn't sure what I believed.

Your answer is prone to infinite regress: Who got the thing that got this thing going? And who got that thing going? Et cetera. Your only way out is to undermine the premise by special pleading. This is logically invalid. I've presented this to you before but sofar you seem determined to ignore it.

 

Why appeal to god at all? Why is the universe itself not a candidate for eternity?

I suppose it could be, but I've never been given a valid reason to believe the universe can offer me eternity.

[The Blue Knight]

Is this your best argument? Seriously?

 

Okay, here is my answer. It takes the form of a question redirected back to you:

 

How do you deal with the majority of scientists that don't embrace intelligent design?

 

How do you deal with scientists that embrace religious beliefs other than yours?

 

If your answer is "compare the arguments of those in both camps and try to determine which reflects reality better", then you have my answer.

Sorry Joe. Answering a question with a question doesn't qualify as an answer. I don't find this difficult to deal with at all. The majority of scientists holding to evolution and atheism is easily explained:

• They accept the same theories that you do without further question because that's how they were trained to think
  
  
• They were educated in secular-liberal universities that removed God many decades ago in favor of man's supreme mind. We tend to recycle the same things we are taught, and that's exactly what most of these scientists do as well
  
  
• Even if some secular scientists do believe in a God, most are hard pressed to advertise that to their peers and colleagues for career reasons.
  

My point is simply this. If the evidence for evolution and atheism is that overwhelmingly irrefutable, how can any reputable scientist find the wherewithal to gravitate away from everything they've been trained to believe in? The answer is simple. They've discovered the truth that evolution takes a considerable leap of faith to accept on it's face. I've heard a number of these scientists admit that they just couldn't ignore the loopholes in evolutionary theory any longer. Their objective integrity is what drove them to finally admit that they could no longer accept what they'd been taught all those years without question.

What does it matter if some scientists still attempt to hold to some form of evolution, while others take the Bible as literal and authoritative . . . or others subscribe to an old earth creation, and still others accept a young earth creation? In the end what matters is that these scientists have come to believe there is "a God" or an intelligence behind all that we see.

[fortyninethousand322]

I think the pet analogy is a bit strained. Certainly we do exploit animals for our own selfish ends, such as circus animals and using them to test cosmetics and medicines, and that is just as morally abhorrent as slavery to me. They might be different words, but they are morally equivalent.

 

Some people will shoot you for tresspassing. Quite a lot, actually, if you include home invasion rather than just walking on a front lawn. It's all basically from the same territorial instinct though. The differences to me are pretty superficial.

 

Perhaps. But I guess what I mean to say is that an animal's life is inherently and naturally cruel, violent, and generally unpleasant. Would you rather be a mouse used in a lab test, or a mouse that was just eaten by a fox? Seems to me 13 one way a baker's dozen the other.

 

Regardless, either by design or evolution (or a bit of both if you're so inclined) I think humans do have a higher status than animals.

[Yamaha]

Why appeal to god at all?

 

Why? Because God loves me.

Yes. I give him praise and want to please him. Why?

Because he created us for his purposes. He created the heavens and the earth for his purposes.

 

You live in the hopes of leaving some remembrance of existence in the world so you will be remembered in human history.

 

I have seen people walk away from alcoholism, drug abuse, adultery, and other things that cause us pain and enslave us. They walked away because of love. Love they felt from God moving in their lives.

 

I hope one day you can feel the love of God available to you. You only have to call out to him and ask if he is real or some imaginary being. He loves all and is open to all who invite him in. He will change you life if you allow it or you can continue as you are but he will still love you.

[thatone]

Is that a justification though? Nature is cruel and merciless. Is this the world you want to live in, where stronger people just knock you down and take what you have, or enslave you and kill you when you serve no further use?

 

I suspect the answer is no, because as a social species we have evolved an ability to cooperate and function in a group. From that we derive a sense of justice. The question is where we draw the line. Who and what is entitled to justice? That is where reasoning comes in. Arbitrarily drawing the line at the species level is not, in my opinion, justified.

 

It is what it is, we have evolved as societies, if not a species, to be less violent, and thats fine. But every living thing is still going to die, no one gets out alive...

 

And it's still that way to an extent. Instead of the biggest neanderthal knocking you on the head, Mitt Romney comes along with Goldman Sachs' money, buys your employer out, empties your pension, and sends you to the unemployment office. Same difference.

[CopingGal]

I don't strongly believe in God or Satan. But I hope God does exist. So I pray. Sometimes I wear a cross. I hope God exists, but I don't know for sure. I depend on me, not God. I hope one day I can depend on God.

[pureinheart]

It's because the word "religion" has a standard meaning, and Christianity fulfills it completely. It's you that is redefining words.

 

 

I know this is for TBK, although just want to say, for me, Christianity describes a personal relationship with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

Religion is man made.

[TaraMaiden]

Religion is an umbrella term for different forms of devotion and following a specific calling.

Christianity is specific to a Theological devotion with Christ as its pivotal player.

 

Ask any two 'Christians' what they believe, and their definitions will diversify - dramatically, at times.

"Well, to me this means..." is one of the most common phrase used by Christians, as they absorb the different teachings and interpret them in ways they feel sit best with them.

[zengirl]

I have nothing against religion. In fact, I am religious, though my religion is not something I would ever proselytize or promote as fact.

 

I have everything against religion that plays at being fact.

 

If someone wants to be personally religious but NOT proselytize to others, try to legislate theocratic ideals, discriminate or hassle those of differing or no religion, or show total ignorance that hinders other (like saying science is a belief) and prevents progress, then I've nothing against their religion. I know plenty of religious people who are like that, and I take no issue with them. The religious people I take issue with are those that pretend faith has any facts to back it up or want to enforce their own religious codes on others and so forth.

 

PERSONAL religion, I have no issues with. Religion that hinders the world, I take GREAT issue with, and when you pretend scientific fact does not exist, discriminate against, hassle, or proselytize to others, legislate your religion's moral code, etc, etc, you are harming the world.

[Moonchie]

People kill others in the name of religion.

 

People put people down in the name of religion.

 

People oppress people in the name of religion.

 

The preacher man says "God wants you to do this." "God wants you to do that."

 

How does he know what God wants? Nobody really knows.

 

In the bible God told a man to kill his son to test his loyalty. The man was going to do it. But God stopped him.

 

If a man called the cops and said God wanted him to kill to test his loyalty, the cops would send him to a mental hospital.

 

If you told people that God turned your neighbor into a pillar of salt, they would take you to the mental hospital.

 

If you tell people that you crossed the Missouri river on foot because God parted it, they would take you to the mental hospital.

 

So people say they believe in the bible, but I question that.

[The Blue Knight]

This is exceptionally untrue. Scientific theories get challenged all the time. Compare scientific knowledge of 100 years ago to today. Theories get updated or overturned if they no longer fit into the larger body of knowledge. It is a continual striving for the best understanding possible.

 

Scientific progress as we have seen would not exist if the obedience to the status quo that you described were commonplace. We'd still be trying to cure everything with leeches. So, this assertion is blatantly in opposition to the facts. The rest of your points are variations on the theme and this response covers them as well.

 

Here's how:

• Not all scientists are biologists. Science is a very specialised field, and you will find that expertise in one field does not result in any greater-than-average insight into other fields.
  
• Many believing scientists are believers first, and compartmentalise their career from their personal beliefs.
  
• Many simply reconcile their religious and scientific differences by claiming that god setup or directed evolution in some way.
  
• Given that the validity of a "first cause" (in other words, supernatural god) is not even a matter of science at all, but more applicable to philosophy due to its indifference to physical evidence, this isn't even a scientific issue in the first place.
  
• Some are simply wrong.
  

I won't devote any more time to this because it's a dead end. It's not even an argument you'd take seriously on any other issue. All I would have to do is present to you the reverse: Ex-Christians (such as Matt Dillahunty or Bart Ehrman or John Loftus) who, as a result of their study, became agnostics and atheists instead. I would then say exactly the same thing to you:

 

They've discovered the truth that Christianity takes a considerable leap of faith to accept on it's face. I've heard a number of these ex-Christians admit that they just couldn't ignore the contradictions in the Bible any longer. Their objective integrity is what drove them to finally admit that they could no longer accept what they'd been taught all those years without question.

 

I believe I said that a couple days back. These conversations and debates don't really change anyone's mind, UNLESS you run across an individual who is searching in which case they will have to investigate and draw their own conclusions on what to believe. You and I have drawn conclusions on the subject long ago and it's not really worth the time going back and forth.

You're opening remark is one of my primary issues regarding particularly things like global warming and evolutionary science. What is sold to us as scientific fact in the classroom, in the news, on the Discovery Channel, and in our texts (and I have had that term "scientific fact" used countless times by evolutionists and atheists) is a theory, which may be updated or altered as necessary and whenever convenient.

 

God however remains the same today as He was from time eternal. Christians who study the beginning of life only have so much to go on since the Bible is neither a scientific manual or a history manual. It gives brief overviews and we can only surmise certain things such as a vapor canopy in the atmosphere at one time, the global flood and sentiment, and things such as this. The difference is we know that we can only take educated guesses a much of what God has done and nobody pretends to know what is factual and what isn't.

For those who are still interested, Anthony Flew, a committed and well-known atheist changed his position a couple of years ago based on philosophic and scientific evidence. Here is his story:

bethinking.org - Science + Christianity - Flew Speaks Out: Professor Antony Flew reviews The God Delusion

 

Scientists who became young earth creationists:

Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists

[d'Arthez]

God however remains the same today as He was from time eternal.

That is an untestable theory.