Evidence for God from Science

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:Min, what you said, is this your general observation?

You know, many poeple were affected by Christianity in many great ways.

I dont know percents. On this forum, and elsewhere, tho, its common as hairs on a dog's back.
I wish it werent so.

Min, we all love you, dearly.

I am incredibly sad that you feel that way.

I dont feel that way. It is what I plainly see with two good eyes.

Feel sad for those nominal Christians who havent a clue how to walk the walk, and wont take a hint
when they are confronted with it.

1over137 wrote:

Doggie!

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Doggie!

Real dogs weigh at least 40 lbs. That would be better classified as a rat. (LOL)

Ken

1over137 wrote:ConfusedMan: your username was ManofGod. it is still valid and active username. you may have forgotten the email or password, but that is not a problem to tell you.

Yeah, the darndest thing is that I sent them my e-mail that I used to register originally, but it said the e-mail was invalid or something like that. Oh well.

I have. If the kind of crazy ideas I see talked about in any way represent an effect that religion has on people, I want no part in it.

Nor should you want any part of it.
We should never want part of anything that has negative outcomes in peoples lives.
There is no need to believe in the supernatural and it is perfectly fine to believe that the material world is all there is, that there is nothing beyond today.
You can be perfectly happy going about your life, doing your day-to-day, obeying the civil laws and rules that you must and being, if you chose to for whatever reason, as "morally" good as you can be.
In the end, everyone needs to follow their conscience and do what they feel is best for themselves and, hopefully, the people around them.
Of course, if that was the case you probably wouldn't be here.

That said, I think that IF you are so certain of the negative impact of religion on people, so certain you want nothing to do with it, so certain that this forum has shown/proven to you that you truly want nothing to do with God then you must follow the only course left to you.

PaulSacramento wrote:

I have. If the kind of crazy ideas I see talked about in any way represent an effect that religion has on people, I want no part in it.

Nor should you want any part of it.
We should never want pa rt of anything that has negative outcomesin peoples lives.
There is no need to believe in the supernatural and it is perfectly fine to believe that the material world is all there is, that there is nothing beyond today.
You can be perfectly happy going about your life, doing your day-to-day, obeying the civil laws and rules that you must and being, if you chose to for whatever reason, as "morally" good as you can be.
In the end, everyone needs to follow their conscience and do what they feel is best for themselves and, hopefully, the people around them.
Of course, if that was the case you probably wouldn't be here.

That said, I think that IF you are so certain of the negative impact of religion on people, so certain you want nothing to do with it, so certain that this forum has shown/proven to you that you truly want nothing to do with God then you must follow the only course left to you.

First item in bold: Everything we take part in has benefits for some, negative effects on others.

Second: are you saying I dont?


Third? "if that WERE the case" But how does the one follow the other?

4th.. Im not "so certain" of the impact of religion. it affects everyone differently, it seems. I dont know if the bigotry and nuttiness so common among the nominal Christians was there before or is a product of their religiosity. Do you?

Final.."nothing to do with god" is not remotely the same thing as wanting nothing to do with religion (if, as above).

First item in bold: Everything we take part in has benefits for some, negative effects on others.

That is true, even if we don't know it.

Second: are you saying I dont?

Only you know for sure, but I hope you do.

Third? "if that WERE the case" But how does the one follow the other?

Not sure what you mean...

4th.. Im not "so certain" of the impact of religion. it affects everyone differently, it seems. I dont know if the bigotry and nuttiness so common among the nominal Christians was there before or is a product of their religiosity. Do you?

Negative traits of believers are a sign of NOT ENOUGH Christ in their lives, not a sign of too much.

Final.."nothing to do with god" is not remotely the same thing as wanting nothing to do with religion (if, as above).

Religion is a set of beliefs in the supernatural ( typically), so any belief in God is, by definition, a religious belief.

When people say they want nothing to do with religion what they typically mean is they want nothing to do with organized religion or expressions of religion that they don't like.

Lets leave it at "any organized religion".

As for how much Jesus, a person who paid attention and tried to emulate would have a hard time being a bigot. Nutty, Im not so sure. People say they are emulating Jesus when they say they believe in noahs ark.

Audie wrote:Lets leave it at "any organized religion".

As for how much Jesus, a person who paid attention and tried to emulate would have a hard time being a bigot. Nutty, Im not so sure. People say they are emulating Jesus when they say they believe in noahs ark.

It is very easy for people to take something good and screw it up, we see it all the time.
It's human nature.
Bigotry is a very hard thing to be self-aware of, we talked about this before.
A bigot is a person that does NOT tolerate other people that have different views from theirs.
Note that it doesn't mean not accept, it means not tolerate.
Typically the individual is intolerant in a irrational and unfair way even.
Sometimes even to the degree of racism.

It is very hard for people to admit to themselves or see themselves as bigots because very few people think that disagreement is bigotry and they are RIGHT.
Disagreement of views is NOT bigotry.
Intolerance of views is bigotry. Intolerance of people is bigotry.

Every time a person says, I disagree, they are NOT bigots though.

Example:
I disagree with homosexuality BUT I have no problem with homosexual people at all ( I have family member that are gay and a few friends as well) and I am tolerant of their lifestyle, even if I disagree with it.
While I could be viewed as a bigot because I am intolerant of homosexual activity ( and not for religious reasons mind you), I am tolerant of homosexuals.
Much like I am sure they tolerate me, but are intolerant of some of my views.

A bigot is one that is intolerant of views AND people to a degree that they almost dehumanize people.

Lets not forget that Jesus was very tolerant of people BUT intolerant of sin.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:Lets leave it at "any organized religion".

As for how much Jesus, a person who paid attention and tried to emulate would have a hard time being a bigot. Nutty, Im not so sure. People say they are emulating Jesus when they say they believe in noahs ark.

It is very easy for people to take something good and screw it up, we see it all the time.
It's human nature.
Bigotry is a very hard thing to be self-aware of, we talked about this before.
A bigot is a person that does NOT tolerate other people that have different views from theirs.
Note that it doesn't mean not accept, it means not tolerate.
Typically the individual is intolerant in a irrational and unfair way even.
Sometimes even to the degree of racism.

It is very hard for people to admit to themselves or see themselves as bigots because very few people think that disagreement is bigotry and they are RIGHT.
Disagreement of views is NOT bigotry.
Intolerance of views is bigotry. Intolerance of people is bigotry.

Every time a person says, I disagree, they are NOT bigots though.

Example:
I disagree with homosexuality BUT I have no problem with homosexual people at all ( I have family member that are gay and a few friends as well) and I am tolerant of their lifestyle, even if I disagree with it.
While I could be viewed as a bigot because I am intolerant of homosexual activity ( and not for religious reasons mind you), I am tolerant of homosexuals.
Much like I am sure they tolerate me, but are intolerant of some of my views.

A bigot is one that is intolerant of views AND people to a degree that they almost dehumanize people.

Lets not forget that Jesus was very tolerant of people BUT intolerant of sin.

Please tell me who this statement below refers to and how inclusive it is of that group. The topic was "secularists". I dont think it was just a comment tossed off, a general statement about everyone like "people dont like cold prickly things".

People don't like rules and things that they feel infringe on their right to do whatever they want to feel good.

Also specify how you know this is true of people in said group any more than it might be of the general population.

Do you think the fine points of whether or not this fully matches some definition of bigotry gets the speaker out of any negative evaluation of such a statement?

Regarding homosexual activity, btw, one of my very close acquaintances was so damaged by abuse at the hands of a man that sex with a man is difficult to impossible.
Are you intolerant of her seeking sexual companionship with another woman?

Audie wrote:Lets leave it at "any organized religion".

As for how much Jesus, a person who paid attention and tried to emulate would have a hard time being a bigot. Nutty, Im not so sure. People say they are emulating Jesus when they say they believe in noahs ark.

Audie,

Jesus spoke of Noah and the ark as real:
Matthew 24:37-39
37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:Lets leave it at "any organized religion".

As for how much Jesus, a person who paid attention and tried to emulate would have a hard time being a bigot. Nutty, Im not so sure. People say they are emulating Jesus when they say they believe in noahs ark.

Audie,

Jesus spoke of Noah and the ark as real:
Matthew 24:37-39
37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Why yes, I know. That is why I mentioned it. Emulating Jesus wont keep a person from being nutty as a fruitcake. Look at the things people come up with, trying to defend the belief that the ark was real. Including, of course, interpreting the story to where its a farmer with some livestock on a raft when the river flooded.


The story is about that, and a handfull of neighbours who were, (gasp) eating and drinking and getting married?

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:Lets leave it at "any organized religion".

As for how much Jesus, a person who paid attention and tried to emulate would have a hard time being a bigot. Nutty, Im not so sure. People say they are emulating Jesus when they say they believe in noahs ark.

Audie,

Jesus spoke of Noah and the ark as real:
Matthew 24:37-39
37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Why yes, I know. That is why I mentioned it. Emulating Jesus wont keep a person from being nutty as a fruitcake. Look at the things people come up with, trying to defend the belief that the ark was real. Including, of course, interpreting the story to where its a farmer with some livestock on a raft when the river flooded.


The story is about that, and a handfull of neighbours who were, (gasp) eating and drinking and getting married?

But then it must logically follow that if the ark wasn't real, and Jesus spoke of the ark as being real, then Jesus must have been "nutty as a fruitcake", right?

Please tell me who this statement below refers to and how inclusive it is of that group. The topic was "secularists". I dont think it was just a comment tossed off, a general statement about everyone like "people dont like cold prickly things".

People don't like rules and things that they feel infringe on their right to do whatever they want to feel good.

It was a general statement on people in general and secularists in particular in the broad sense that secularists are people ( it also applies to religious people of course).

Also specify how you know this is true of people in said group any more than it might be of the general population.

See above.

Do you think the fine points of whether or not this fully matches some definition of bigotry gets the speaker out of any negative evaluation of such a statement?

Bigotry is the INTOLERANCE of a person of a view point, typically without justification.
The comment above is not a biogot-like comment at all, surely you can see that a comment doesn't speak of tolerance ( or the lack thereof) can't be a bigoted comment?

Regarding homosexual activity, btw, one of my very close acquaintances was so damaged by abuse at the hands of a man that sex with a man is difficult to impossible.
Are you intolerant of her seeking sexual companionship with another woman?

First off, IF the reason she is looking for sexual comfort from a woman is because of abuse at the hands of a man, then her issues are far reaching and she needs to seek professional help.
She is not a homosexual.
Second, IF you had read what I actually wrote you would have understood that being intolerant of an activity does NOT equate of being intolerant of people OR their rights to peruse any activity that does NOT harm themselves or others ( putting aside the issue of whether homosexuality is harmful or not).

Of course, by your view, anyone that is intolerant of rape, for example, is a bigot also.
Anyone intolerant of anything is a bigot it seems.

And since, in your own words you are intolerant of religion:

If the kind of crazy ideas I see talked about in any way represent an effect that religion has on people, I want no part in it.

That makes you a bigot.