Survey for Atheists

[ollkiller]

I always find it amusing that people talk about the perfection of our planet, having only one moon and being in the goldilocks zone and this being a sign that a creator meant it this way. There's always the other side that out of the billions upon billions of planets in the universe odds are one of them are going to have the right conditions for life. Are we just lucky?

Edited October 26, 2007 by ollkiller

[Grungekid]

Well, having finally finished that reading that...I think you are wrong on nearly every point and I will lay that argument out later on in my post. After reading your complete misunderstanding about burden of proof, I hope that you are not involved in the legal system in anyway...I would hate to have to prove I was innocent instead of others proving having to prove guilt...who knows what kind of wild accusations people would throw around.

How do you compare your own side to the one who is innocent? That analogy can be true of either of us. We are both telling the other that they are wrong.

I can see I'm frustrating you. You take up one of the many similarities I list and reject it because of semantics...not too impressive. Yes there may be some differences, but more than enough similarities to see where the idea came from.

You're frustrating me because that's not very good evidence. You try to compare Christianity to Egyptian religion, and I point out to you the great differences, and you retreat by saying that they are merely 'semantics'. That's basically making an argument, having it refuted, then saying that the evidence against you is mere 'semantics'. There are very distinct differences between Christianity and Egyptian religion, and it displays your lack of knowledge about either when you are unable to distinguish these. How can you say something is wrong when you don't even know what it is? We had problems with this earlier, when I said that some of your conclusions are not at odds with Christian doctrine, and you said you didn't care, because you didn't deem it necessary to learn about what I actually believe. You can't argue with me if you don't even know what I stand for. I know you won't own up to it, but the fact of the matter is you are clueless, and you are making dire mistakes, some of which impede the process of good argument itself.

wow, I don't know how to put this more simply. As for the USSR, I quote Hitchens who knows much more about the subject than you or I:

"For hundreds of years, millions of Russians had been told the head of state should be a man close to God, the czar, who was head of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as absolute despot. If you

[Guest]

WORTHY IS HIS NAME FOR HE IS WORTHY

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:9-10

"And he said, LORD God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart:" 1 Kings 8:23

I would hate to have to prove I was innocent instead of others proving having to prove guilt...who knows what kind of wild accusations people would throw around.

Wild Thing And The Man Of Innocence

BUT I WAS INNOCENT

Of Sin

Of sin, because they believe not on me;

John 16:9

Of Hate

But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

Proverbs 8:36

Of Corruption

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

Psalms 53:1

MAN OF INNOCENCE

Man Of Sorrow

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Isaiah 53:3

Man Of Silence

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Isaiah 53:5-7

Man Of Innocence

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Isaiah 53:9-10

Man Of Life

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16

Be Blessed Beloved

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Joe

[cwcrenshaw]

How do you compare your own side to the one who is innocent? That analogy can be true of either of us. We are both telling the other that they are wrong.

I was not indicating that either of us would be on the innocent side...that is not the point at all. The point was to show how the burden of proof is on the side making the claim. I used the justice system as an example because this is the most obvious illustration of this.

You're frustrating me because that's not very good evidence. You try to compare Christianity to Egyptian religion, and I point out to you the great differences, and you retreat by saying that they are merely 'semantics'. That's basically making an argument, having it refuted, then saying that the evidence against you is mere 'semantics'. There are very distinct differences between Christianity and Egyptian religion, and it displays your lack of knowledge about either when you are unable to distinguish these. How can you say something is wrong when you don't even know what it is? We had problems with this earlier, when I said that some of your conclusions are not at odds with Christian doctrine, and you said you didn't care, because you didn't deem it necessary to learn about what I actually believe. You can't argue with me if you don't even know what I stand for. I know you won't own up to it, but the fact of the matter is you are clueless, and you are making dire mistakes, some of which impede the process of good argument itself.

But you did try to rebuke my arguments on semantics..and only one of the examples at that. Yes there are differences between Egyptian and Christian religions...but an amazing number of similarities between them that should make even the most fundamental Christian raise an eyebrow. It is not Christian Doctorine that I "dont care" about...it is your particular interpretation of them. It is impossible to argue with someone's particular interpretation of the Bible...because honestly, it's hard to find 2 people that agree on everything in the Bible. We must be able to debate on common grounds not this "moving goal post" of personal interpretation.

You refused to make any statements yourself, again. Look, Hitchens really isn't a very good person to be taking information. In fact, he's somewhat of a drunkard. He hates mother Theresa like Hitler hated Anne Frank, and many have already been able to find serious flaws in his book, including his knowledge of political history and the actual belief systems he attacks. Its very telling you would quote something from someone as hateful and inaccurate as Hitchens. Your quote doesn't even actually answer the issue. It doesn't address the fact that Stalin was an intense atheist, and he killed many innocent religious people, as well as others, promoting his ideals. It almost seems that Hitchens reveres atheism almost like a Catholic would the Pope, believing atheists and atheist governments to be incapable of what has very clearly occured in history. I may almost see some of Stalin's very same ideals in that sentence, if I'm reading his words about raising us from servility and credulity. Perhaps that alludes to the atheist dilusion of killing innocent people because of their religion, which you believe to be 'infecting' the populace? Even if it did, you would never admit that was true. Look at yourselves; your completely prejudice, and very self-righteous, to the point where you won't admit your own flaws, or that anyone who followed you made any of their own.

I won't address the first part because that is simply ad hominem and does not deserve a response. All I can say is that I don't think you want to get into the "bad habits" of those claiming to be on the religious side. I will stick to the issue instead. The point of the quotation is that Stalin used the institution of religion that was ready-made for him. It was religion that was the vehicle to oppression in the USSR, not Atheism. You will no doubt insist that this was an example of what happens when Atheism is in power though...for that all I can say is that this is not the Atheism I condone. Not all Atheism is the same...just like I can't blame you for every atrocity ever committed in your God's name by every different denomination. I would like to draw attention to the final sentence of the quote:

"No society has gone the way of gulags or concentration camps by following the path of Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas Paine."

This is the Atheism that I support. In fact, we have a very close example of the type of government Hitchens is describing...the USA. The USA is one of the only countries in the world that forbids the government establishment of religion, without infringing on the rights of individuals to worship however they please in private. I dare say that you too have found this type of government appealing...or at least, I should hope so.

Actually, I can follow your reasoning by including what would happen if I didn't serve other gods. In the ancient Greek religion, I would go to Hades anyway. In Bhuddist religion, I may be reincarnated as a lower lifeform. In Judaism, I might end up in Sheol for awhile, or I could become a Dybbuk, or potentially spent some time with punishment then be returned to Heaven. The only religion I need worry about is Islam, and I have my reasons for believing that it was entirely made up. Muhammed came not long after the Jews and the Christians, and He shares many of their ideas, accept that He uses the sword to punctuate himself. The concept of terror is utilized to force one to believe, much more so than in Christianity, and I think that shows a lack of true evidence.

Again, why don't you just make sure? You don't need to do very much that (I'm sure) you're not already doing. Don't kill, don't lie, treat people with respect etc. All you really have to do is admit you might be wrong, and accept that Christ is able to save you through His death. Are you afraid you might find something more? Have you ever tried things God's way? Again, what is so terrible about it, and what will you lose?

So you believe in God because Hell is the scariest consequence of all the major religions? I hope that is not what you mean. By your logic, unless you can come up with a good reason for not believing in a religion...and the consequences of not believing in that religion frighten you....then you should believe in the God of that particular religion just in case. If that is accurate then suffice it to say I've yet to meet even the first condition And yes I was raised in the church and a Christian household...I have read the Bible. I did not come to Atheism through ignorance of Christianity...quite the opposite...I came to Atheism because of what I learned about Christianity....and once you've discarded one religion, it is quite easy to discard them all for the exact same reasons.

Science doesn't claim to know anything, you do, by taking it a step further and saying that anything that cannot be demonstrated through science is not true, and thus that science is truth, or that you only believe what is visible to be true, when you cannot prove that.

And yet I have previously said that there is no truth, only perception.

No, it really doesn't, because its quite simple: the supernatural does the physically impossible.

How so? If you were able to demonstrate conclusively that supernatural phenomena existed that had the ability to suspend the universal and constant laws of physics that are known to be unavoidable...this would destroy every single human scientific advancement ever made and we would have to start from scratch...how would this not raise more questions than answers?

Some people chose those methods, yes, but I have seen a stronger method. My pastors have become kind and generous married people, who spend time with kids, devote time to charity, and pass all sorts of medical exams, when they used to be drug-addicts and alcoholics, sometimes violent ones. I know a man who converted when he saw another man's broken leg heal right before His eyes. I know millions of people who find peace and purpose in what we believe. Just as many claim to have experienced a God in some way or another, and I think that you make a mistake in writing all of them off as liars. The folks at my church are some of the best men and women I have ever met in my life, and I only hope and pray I can mirror them. I know that other people can be good, but those at my church are just so good at doing it, and even they admit it only happens when they are trying to follow Him. Even more convincing, prayer works. I was once on the verge of suicide, and I cried out to God, and I am alive and happy now. When I have anxiety issues, I pray to Him and out of the blue I start to feel peace. I can't explain to you how it works, only that it does.

This is the part I cannot stand. When painted into a logical corner, the religious resort to the safety of the anecdote. By trying to pass off personal experience as some sort of evidence forces people like me into the very uncomfortable position of A) being polite and not saying anything to the contrary or B) being very inpolite by continuing to disagree, which by default questions the other person's credibility and accuses them of lying somehow. I will not be put in that position. This is where I say...if it works for you, great...but leave me out of it. If I wanted to play the anecdotal game with you, I would tell you that I too am a married man that considers myself to be kind, rational, and moral...I have many relatives with kids that the fathers have abandoned and I try as much as I can to be a strong "big bother" or father figure to those children. God has played no part in my decision to do this. Anecdotal evidence is a very weak and childish foundation on which to base an argument and I hope that we can avoid doing so.

Exactly. But you said it yourself, it's not darkness its just the way things are if you are correct. Cw, I am very sorry if I have seemed rude to you, but there is something I want very desperately to show you. I discovered this thinking about life from a purely natural point of view, and it kept me awake for a long time. If there is no moral rule being instituted to us, then we are just making this up. Just like I have evolved the abillity to have religious experiences, you invented these ideas of peace and justice, you invented the right and wrong, we both did, just because it kept our ancestors alive long enough to become the dominant species. It doesn't have anything to do with the ideas in your mind, but with simply with testing natural selection. Noone cares about the individual, all that's important is the survival of the species. In the end, you can do what you wish, it makes no difference which way you go, we all go to the same place. There is no true reason not to kill and cheat, hurt and lie, they are just coping mechanisms that helped the process of evolution. Your personal life, morals, thoughts and feelings, are all just mechanical processes, and you don't even really exist, only those sensations do. Do you see, cw? If there is no God, there is no reason. You make it up and pretend it matters - such is the sad attempt at philosophy by the humanists.

There is reason without God. Our reason arose out of the evolution of our species to become higher thinking animals...and fortunately, we're not finished yet. This intelligence has allowed us to overcome the mechanisms of Darwinian natural selection...you need look no further than your medicine cabinet or the use of contraceptives to prove that. It would be right to conclude that there would be no reason not to kill, etc if we were lower thinking animals...but this presents a conundrum of sorts which is this: If we were lower thinking animals...we would not have the ability to realize that there is no reason not too kill, etc...therefore we would not simply kill because we thought "why not?". But since we are higher thinking animals, we have the ability to reason that this type of behavior is not logical and is in fact brutal. Anyone that would kill just because they found out God doesn't exist, is not a rational person.

Understand one thing: I am not trying to scare you, and I am not trying to hurt you or to beat you in an argument, I just care and I want to show you the truth, and nothing more and nothing less. I am not trying to depress you into Christianity, that is not how a Christian should witness. I only want to give you the revelation I had when I tried to look at a world without God. I admit, it can be hard to believe sometimes, but I have never been through anything that God could not help me out with, and in one way or another, He has always done something to comfort me when I pray or answer me when I have a question.

I'm am glad that you find comfort in God and that is not something I have a problem with...people may use whatever they need so long as it doesn't impede on anyone else's choice. My problem is the religious telling people that they NEED God...that they are incapable of functioning without Him. I realize that you are only trying to share your beliefs with me, not scare or depress me. Let me assure that it takes much more than that to shake me up. I appreciate you trying to show me the "light at the end of the cave"...but I assure you, sir, that there is in fact no cave.

Edited October 26, 2007 by cwcrenshaw

[cwcrenshaw]

I always find it amusing that people talk about the perfection of our planet, having only one moon and being in the goldilocks zone and this being a sign that a creator meant it this way. There's always the other side that out of the billions upon billions of planets in the universe odds are one of them are going to have the right conditions for life. Are we just lucky?

Precisely... I think I would say we are inevitable rather than lucky. If you look at the probabilities associated with the conditions to support life (as we know it) opposed to the shear size of our universe...it would be almost statistically impossible to say that there AREN'T quite a few planets out there that are capable of, and in fact do, harbor life.

[Grungekid]

But you did try to rebuke my arguments on semantics..and only one of the examples at that. Yes there are differences between Egyptian and Christian religions...but an amazing number of similarities between them that should make even the most fundamental Christian raise an eyebrow. It is not Christian Doctorine that I "dont care" about...it is your particular interpretation of them. It is impossible to argue with someone's particular interpretation of the Bible...because honestly, it's hard to find 2 people that agree on everything in the Bible. We must be able to debate on common grounds not this "moving goal post" of personal interpretation.

Its because its not just semantics, cw, those are great differences. Those claims did not make me raise an eyebrow, because I knew that several of them were incorrect, showing you did not know about the Egyptian religion in the first place, and that they were indeed different. If you found only one similarity, I feel confident that you would still believe it was a huge co-relation between the two beliefs. The Egyptian pantheon was massive, with over 5,000 seperate deities that we have identified. There are bound to be some similar characters, but the fact is they are a long ways from identical, or even notably similar.

Our beliefs are not the exact same, no, but they are not radically different from person to person. That's no excuse to be unknowledgable.

I won't address the first part because that is simply ad hominem and does not deserve a response.

All of those statements were true. He is a drunkard, he has been openly criticized by many different people and publications without religious affiliation, and he is very inflammatory, himself.

All I can say is that I don't think you want to get into the "bad habits" of those claiming to be on the religious side. I will stick to the issue instead. The point of the quotation is that Stalin used the institution of religion that was ready-made for him. It was religion that was the vehicle to oppression in the USSR, not Atheism. You will no doubt insist that this was an example of what happens when Atheism is in power though...for that all I can say is that this is not the Atheism I condone. Not all Atheism is the same...just like I can't blame you for every atrocity ever committed in your God's name by every different denomination. I would like to draw attention to the final sentence of the quote:

"No society has gone the way of gulags or concentration camps by following the path of Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas Paine."

There are already bad habits on your own, and your inabillity to admit that is still noted.

Again, your idols were not atheists at all, and even in your atheist world, which has apparently already been created, there is still much disagreement, pain, wrongdoing, and suffering. I stick by the possibillity that all of those who used religion to sponsor evil were in fact atheists.

So you believe in God because Hell is the scariest consequence of all the major religions? I hope that is not what you mean. By your logic, unless you can come up with a good reason for not believing in a religion...and the consequences of not believing in that religion frighten you....then you should believe in the God of that particular religion just in case. If that is accurate then suffice it to say I've yet to meet even the first condition And yes I was raised in the church and a Christian household...I have read the Bible. I did not come to Atheism through ignorance of Christianity...quite the opposite...I came to Atheism because of what I learned about Christianity....and once you've discarded one religion, it is quite easy to discard them all for the exact same reasons.

'Scariest' is a general word, but this does prove that I still have little to fear if I am wrong. Yes, you would still have some concerns, but you asked about the relevance of Pascal's Wager (did I call him Carl earlier? Sorry about that) under the circumstances of multiple religions, and I gave it to you from the points of view of those religions. Consider your argument with the use of multiplicity of gods refuted.

How so? If you were able to demonstrate conclusively that supernatural phenomena existed that had the ability to suspend the universal and constant laws of physics that are known to be unavoidable...this would destroy every single human scientific advancement ever made and we would have to start from scratch...how would this not raise more questions than answers?

No, it would not. The physics of the universe would not be reset. You cannot demonstrate that the big bang works, but it is still taught in schools. I do not need to demonstrate God making the universe through supernatural (naturally undetectable) means. All we would be saying is that it took a supernatural entity to create natural material, since no other means applies, and that we now have a continuity of physical evidence that can be studied and analyzed to come up to purely natural explanations.

I do understand, however, that methodological naturalism would not allow for this to be taught in schools, and that isn't what I was really looking for. All I want is for scientists to reveal the truth that the Big Bang theory is totally irrational and irreconcilable with other laws of nature.

This is the part I cannot stand. When painted into a logical corner, the religious resort to the safety of the anecdote. By trying to pass off personal experience as some sort of evidence forces people like me into the very uncomfortable position of A) being polite and not saying anything to the contrary or B) being very inpolite by continuing to disagree, which by default questions the other person's credibility and accuses them of lying somehow. I will not be put in that position. This is where I say...if it works for you, great...but leave me out of it. If I wanted to play the anecdotal game with you, I would tell you that I too am a married man that considers myself to be kind, rational, and moral...I have many relatives with kids that the fathers have abandoned and I try as much as I can to be a strong "big bother" or father figure to those children. God has played no part in my decision to do this. Anecdotal evidence is a very weak and childish foundation on which to base an argument and I hope that we can avoid doing so.

Its not an anecdote, its my experience, and they are real. If they happened to you, you would not be so quick to discard them. Such is the nature of a metaphysical naturalist. You take real contradictions at your word as made up stories and sometimes even refuse to see the experiences in your own life. I actually tried to show that it works, just through my own life experience, which I thought you might value at this point. You overrate your own arguing abillity, but that is one of the expected flaws of your approach.

There is reason without God. Our reason arose out of the evolution of our species to become higher thinking animals...and fortunately, we're not finished yet. This intelligence has allowed us to overcome the mechanisms of Darwinian natural selection...you need look no further than your medicine cabinet or the use of contraceptives to prove that. It would be right to conclude that there would be no reason not to kill, etc if we were lower thinking animals...but this presents a conundrum of sorts which is this: If we were lower thinking animals...we would not have the ability to realize that there is no reason not too kill, etc...therefore we would not simply kill because we thought "why not?". But since we are higher thinking animals, we have the ability to reason that this type of behavior is not logical and is in fact brutal. Anyone that would kill just because they found out God doesn't exist, is not a rational person.

What does rationallity have to do with it? 'Higher thinking animals' is an indescriptive term with no meaning and it does not quallify in a meta-ethics discussion. If there is no God, you invented those reasons NOT to do 'bad' things, cw. Why should we follow those laws? Why does anything matter? We are accidents, and our existence is so small, so menial, so unnecessary. There is no reason NOT to do anything. Do whatever makes you happy, because you will not be able to enjoy anything when you die, and we all die. Moreover, what will happen if you don't follow your 'moral guide' that you believe in so strongly? The only thing you need concern yourself with is happiness (which doesn't really exist or matter, because it is just a chemical state in your brain induced by certian stimuli) and staying alive. You only follow the law or your moral guide because other people might prevent you from achieving either of those.

I'm am glad that you find comfort in God and that is not something I have a problem with...people may use whatever they need so long as it doesn't impede on anyone else's choice. My problem is the religious telling people that they NEED God...that they are incapable of functioning without Him. I realize that you are only trying to share your beliefs with me, not scare or depress me. Let me assure that it takes much more than that to shake me up. I appreciate you trying to show me the "light at the end of the cave"...but I assure you, sir, that there is in fact no cave.

Plato's Cave is very real, and people do need God, whether or not they are humble enough to admit it. We can FUNCTION without Him, but that's it. We don't have joy, we don't have peace, and we don't feel fulfilled in life. You may think that your existence right now is all there is too it, and like Trent Resner you may feel 'happy here', because you haven't ever known anything more, and you've fooled yourself into believing that you're full of joy, but if you knew God's joy and His peace, you would be so much better off. You could finally experience the other half of reallity, the other half of your consciousness that has been shut off to you all along.

[sososo]

I always find it amusing that people talk about the perfection of our planet, having only one moon and being in the goldilocks zone and this being a sign that a creator meant it this way. There's always the other side that out of the billions upon billions of planets in the universe odds are one of them are going to have the right conditions for life. Are we just lucky?

Science talks about this, I thought I'd mention it to make the point that you and others may find amusing[?]. That point being what you have already stated about the odds and probability. Google the odds and find out if there's better odds at wining a lottery.

I didn't write about this being a 'sign' or evidence, you have taken it that way[?]. What I do know is that if a belief doesn't give a person adequate answers to life questions, science only provides more questions at best.

[Grungekid]

What is the difference between *feeling* that I have joy, peace, and a fulfilling life, and *actually* having those things? As far as I understand, joy itself is a feeling, so if I feel it, I have it. Peace is a feeling, so if I feel it, I have it. A Fulfilling life is a subjective judgment on ones own situation, usually measured by the amount of happiness one finds from day to day. It is for each individual to judge if they are happy enough to consider their own life fulfilling. I have joy, peace, and feel fulfilled all the time, especially when I'm in the company of those I love (my family, my girlfriend). You claim that if I've really experienced God's joy, I would suddenly realize that *this* joy I have isn't nearly what God's joy is, but have you experience the joy of unbelief in God? The several years I started slipping away from religion I still held with me the idea of God, as abstract as it had become .. but once I actually looked at the evidence, saw that belief in God was irrational, the belief just vanished. Since then it's been immensely freeing, a huge weight off my shoulders, an experience of liberation to a degree. Maybe when someone in troubling times *finds* God, they do find happiness to what they had before, but they enter into a restrictive and dogmatic mindset, disallowing certain thoughts to ever cross their minds, questions such as "does God really exist?", "is Christianity *really* true, what about the other religions?" ... in order to objectively look at these questions you have to step outside of the mindset that you already know the answers. But that's a problem because that is a dishonor to God, because it means you are temporarily rejecting him, you are putting human reason above God. Yet, isn't that the default position? Every human is born into this world with only their capacity for reason, no notion of religion and God, those are human constructs which much be judged themselves before being accepted or rejected. I reject them, you accept them. If we each find happiness in our own conclusions on these issues, why is their a problem?

JoelWildTree, to your first point about emotions, I am certain that there are varying degrees of intensity. For example, a kid growing up in a violent third world country could be capable of experiencing peace, but it would be undoubtedly a different thing from what a person who lives in an upper-town community would have. As to life being fulfilling, happiness is a strange way of judging fulfilment. A person may be happy getting wasted, but is that truly fulfilling? Lastly, I would like to note that your sudden feelings of freedom once you lost faith may not have anything to do with a belief in God having oppressed you, but that you simply were following religion. Once we become immersed in religious practice and legalism, it makes God seem distant and we become very oppressed, indeed. Christianity is a personal relationship with God. If you learned to seek Him, and to try to talk to Him, you might feel a more real spirituallity.

I understand you won't do that or even consider it, living your life as you see fit.

[sososo]

Hi JoelWildtree

I'm just wondering since you mention in your reply things concerning the mind, soul [ie.,feelings, personality,..] and spirit to which you end your post in a sarcasm concerning spirituality and Allah, what do you view as spirit or if you even still believe that a part of you besides the mind and emotions is spirit and is a part of us? Do you view consciousness as spirituality in whole or in part?

I don't believe in humanism to which many atheists adhere to and any of the lies that we are gods[ if consciously realized ] and the whole or any major part of any of humanities' problems will ever be solved, remember we were exiled from Eden, in a state of duality and corrupt.

A part of what I mean when I say corrupt has something to do with death. You can research this yourself and find that there is no such thing as a natural death [check any coroner's report], there is no reason to why we die except as a inherited at the time of exile.

If you are completely satisfied with the secular answers given for life's big questions I'm not one to judge. If you are satisfied that this is all there is in life as a human being and that viruses are better at this then us, I'm not one to judge. If your sub-conscious and conscious are telling you Hmmmm.... there is something I'm missing, I'm am not one to judge.

Edited October 29, 2007 by sososo

[sososo]

I always find it amusing that people talk about the perfection of our planet, having only one moon and being in the goldilocks zone and this being a sign that a creator meant it this way. There's always the other side that out of the billions upon billions of planets in the universe odds are one of them are going to have the right conditions for life. Are we just lucky?

Precisely... I think I would say we are inevitable rather than lucky. If you look at the probabilities associated with the conditions to support life (as we know it) opposed to the shear size of our universe...it would be almost statistically impossible to say that there AREN'T quite a few planets out there that are capable of, and in fact do, harbor life.

Now this is something that I find amusing! The ' almost statistically impossible to say ' propaganda that atheists swallow as fact and truth. ...Capable of, and in fact do, harbor life [left out "as we know it"], it's the if a tree fell and no one was around... so by chance we get a satellite photo one day of life [enter no. here] trillion light years away so what? I'd first have to be convinced it's not another propaganda lie to suit a governing agenda.