Quoted: I have been looking into Christianity here lately and the more I dig the less I seem to care about it.  The stories and tales are so far fetched it is like a fairy tale gone weird.   I guess I am getting down to the bottomline of.... If you can believe there is some guy that lives in sky that you can't see, what could I get you not to believe?  Seems to me if you can be convinced of that, there is not much that you could not be convinced into believing. Sorry to be so brutal about it but, I am definately not getting it.

I think a better question is that since  those who are quite a good deal smarter than you or I believed that God necessarily exists (Aristotle, Einstien, Galileo, Planck, ect.) what intrinsic disposition (pride, conceit, immaturity, arrogance, ignorance, ect.) is subordinating your reason?

In the search for who God is I will use my reason to side with Aquinis over Luther.
In the belief that God exists I will use my reason to side with Einstien over Stalin.
Seems to me that someone who would believe Stalin's view of reality would just about believe anything.

1GR,

If as you say there is no God and no Heaven, then there must be no Satan and no Hell.  If this is the case, then there is no difference between say Stalin or Hitler and Mother Theresa or Billy Graham.  At the time of their death, they all meet the same fate?  Seems like a great waste to me then.

1Gunnrunner,

I'd tend to agree - the typical Christian belief system relies on belief in seemingly rediculous things.  In the Bible there seems to be a lot of good stuff, but also a lot of junk.  My main problem in most denominations is the limited allowance for honest questioning assumptions.  (Saying that Jesus is the son of God because that's what the Bible says is TOTALLY lacking in independant credability).

Belloc's argument sounds like "You should be a Christian if so-and-so is a Christian or so-and-so is not a Christian" - no connection to Truth.

VA-gunnut's argument of avoiding a belief system because it would require that they change the way they live is certainly something to be aware of, but when HONESTLY searching for Truth I think it is a minor factor.

IMHO, looking at one belief system to try to believe in it one must remember an interpretation of "Seek and ye shall find".  If one spends enough time studying and trying to believe in something they end up deluding themself into believing it is true.  

OTOH, if one honestly seeks Truth, they can find it as well (or at least get much closer).  I like the idea of using a system that can guide one closer to the ultimate Truth by honestly questioning assumptions (including our own), eliminating obvious untruths (like Occam's Razor), and using methodology (like Scientific Method) to come to reasonable conclusions about Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Ultimately one has to make base assumptions about life to survive, but I think they should be fairly simple (ie, the world is a logical place.)  It is a HUGE unsubstantiated leap to believe in miracles, afterlife, or god/gods (much less those that control our destinies).  

Do you currently practice a religion?

It looks like you are struggling to believe that there is a God at all, right?

Here are some things to consider:

A belief in God is necessary before you can believe He has a Son, named Jesus Christ.
Have you tried praying to God?
Specifically, ask God to reveal himself and his truth to you.
If you are serious and genuinely want guidance, God will answer your prayer.

Quoted:
1Gunnrunner,
I'd tend to agree - the typical Christian belief system relies on belief in seemingly rediculous things.
Pray tell what these "rediculous" things are.

In the Bible there seems to be a lot of good stuff, but also a lot of junk.
Again, be specific.

My main problem in most denominations is the limited allowance for honest questioning assumptions.  (Saying that Jesus is the son of God because that's what the Bible says is TOTALLY lacking in independant credability).
Like, TOTALLY?

Belloc's argument sounds like "You should be a Christian if so-and-so is a Christian or so-and-so is not a Christian" - no connection to Truth.
Only to someone who is trying to convince others that he actually knows what he is talking about, which you do not.
1. I never mentioned Christianity, only God.
2.  With my mentioning of a certain philosopher I was including his efficient and final causes, (among his other 3). I am quite certain that here you have no idea  to what it is that I am referring, but that seems insufficient to prevent you from speaking of something about which you so evidently know precious little.


IMHO, looking at one belief system to try to believe in it one must remember an interpretation of "Seek and ye shall find".
I fail to understand how someone so painfully incapable of comprehending basic english grammatical structure could feel qualified to comment on metaphysics.

If one spends enough time studying and trying to believe in something they end up deluding themself into believing it is true.
Let us hope then that those studying the Second Amendment are few indeed, otherwise they may delude themselves into believing it true.  

OTOH, if one honestly seeks Truth, they can find it as well (or at least get much closer).  I like the idea of using a system that can guide one closer to the ultimate Truth by honestly questioning assumptions (including our own), eliminating obvious untruths (like Occam's Razor), and using methodology (like Scientific Method) to come to reasonable conclusions about Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Sorry, are you saying use Occam's Razor or eliminate Occam's Razor? Without doing a google search can you even state Ockham's law of economy? Do you even know who he is?

Ultimately one has to make base assumptions about life to survive, but I think they should be fairly simple (ie, the world is a logical place.)
If you had studied the history of logic you would know that logicians never "made the base assumption" that the world was a logical place. Can you name the person who founded and completed logic as a science?


It is a HUGE unsubstantiated leap to believe in miracles, afterlife, or god/gods (much less those that control our destinies).
One cannot be sure here if it is "unsubstantiated" of which you do not know the meaning, or miracles, or perhaps even "HUGE".
Not that it matters.


Sorry to be harsh but I am growing increasingly tired of those who attack belief in the existence of God from a position of proud and even willfull ignorance. Opinions and, God help us, feelings, have replaced scholastic labor. But in an age as intellectually impoverished as ours, where the Trivium has been replaced with a curriculem of "sex" education, "minority studies" and "home-economics", one should perhaps not be all that surprised.

Quoted: Quoted: I have been looking into Christianity here lately and the more I dig the less I seem to care about it.  The stories and tales are so far fetched it is like a fairy tale gone weird.   I guess I am getting down to the bottomline of.... If you can believe there is some guy that lives in sky that you can't see, what could I get you not to believe?  Seems to me if you can be convinced of that, there is not much that you could not be convinced into believing. Sorry to be so brutal about it but, I am definately not getting it. I think a better question is that since  those who are quite a good deal smarter than you or I believed that God necessarily exists (Aristotle, Einstien, Galileo, Planck, ect.) what intrinsic disposition (pride, conceit, immaturity, arrogance, ignorance, ect.) is subordinating your reason? In the search for who God is I will use my reason to side with Aquinis over Luther. In the belief that God exists I will use my reason to side with Einstien over Stalin. Seems to me that someone who would believe Stalin's view of reality would just about believe anything.

Since you seem to like classical thought so much, can you tell me the two logical fallacies your argument makes use of?

Its also a lie to say Einstien believed in a personal God.

[Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press] It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

[Albert Einstein,The World as I See It] I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.

p.s. bonus points if you can name the logical fallacy that the original poster used as well.  Which is how you should have responded to his idiotic statement, instead of crafting your own equally idiotic statement sweetened with a lie.

Quoted: Its also a lie to say Einstien believed in a personal God.

What is a lie is to insinuate that I somehow stated that he did.

Quoted: Quoted: Its also a lie to say Einstien believed in a personal God. What is a lie is to insinuate that I somehow stated that he did.

aah so your statement wasn't crafted to make someone think if they didn't believe in God they were agreeing with Stalin and disagreeing with Einstein?



umm yeah

Metaphysically speaking was Einstein an atheist or a theist?

[Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism. ] received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Its also a lie to say Einstien believed in a personal God. What is a lie is to insinuate that I somehow stated that he did. aah so your statement wasn't crafted to make someone think if they didn't believe in God they were agreeing with Stalin and disagreeing with Einstein? umm yeah

I know from many of your posts that you are not nearly so stupid as you are demonstrating here. The question is why. And why did lie?
Einstien believed that God existed. Stalin did not.
I never even hinted that Einstien believed in a "personal" God, just that God existed. So, again, why lie abou it?

Quoted: Metaphysically speaking was Einstein an atheist or a theist? [Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism. ] received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.

Once in answer to the question "Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" Einstein replied as follows:

I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Its also a lie to say Einstien believed in a personal God. What is a lie is to insinuate that I somehow stated that he did. aah so your statement wasn't crafted to make someone think if they didn't believe in God they were agreeing with Stalin and disagreeing with Einstein? umm yeah I know from many of your posts that you are not nearly so stupid as you are demonstrating here. The question is why. And why did lie? Einstien believed that God existed. Stalin did not. I never even hinted that Einstien believed in a "personal" God, just that God existed. So, again, why lie abou it?

read my post above

From our past discussion I know your smart enough to know exactly how fallacious your argument is.    Since you use it anyway, I assume you have other motivations for using something you know is false  argumentation.  

In his own words, from the perspective of a Jesuit, he would be considered an atheist.

If Einstien believed in God based upon his statements, the most of the atheists I know believe in God as well.  Based on that I believe in God, who according to the Bible doesn't exist because it certainly isn't the God of the Bible.  

The idea that he believed in the same God Christians believe in is ludicrous.

It's almost as hard to believe as inanimate matter sitting in space long enough that it actually became an animate object and then became self aware! Then not only that, but it then could explain it's own existance, with out explaining where matter came from in the first place. Some of us do not believe that God is not matter. God, if he is matter, has been here from all eternity. Otherwise he would have a beginning. But he is without beginning of days or end of years, is this not matter?

And if said matter became aware of its self and how to organize more matter like unto its self, would it not be God?

Quoted: Quoted: I have been looking into Christianity here lately and the more I dig the less I seem to care about it.  The stories and tales are so far fetched it is like a fairy tale gone weird.   I guess I am getting down to the bottomline of.... If you can believe there is some guy that lives in sky that you can't see, what could I get you not to believe?  Seems to me if you can be convinced of that, there is not much that you could not be convinced into believing. Sorry to be so brutal about it but, I am definately not getting it. I think a better question is that since  those who are quite a good deal smarter than you or I believed that God necessarily exists (Aristotle, Einstien, Galileo, Planck, ect.) what intrinsic disposition (pride, conceit, immaturity, arrogance, ignorance, ect.) is subordinating your reason? In the search for who God is I will use my reason to side with Aquinis over Luther. In the belief that God exists I will use my reason to side with Einstien over Stalin. Seems to me that someone who would believe Stalin's view of reality would just about believe anything.

I'm more than willing to except that Einstien was smarter than me......but now show me there he proved that there is a God. He may have beleived that there is a God .....but belief isn't proof.  

Quoted:
read my post above
Nowhere in your post do you even begin to pretend to be able to demonstrate that I stated that Einstien believed in a "personal" God.

 

The idea that he believed in the same God Christians believe in is ludicrous.
Are you simply making up statements so as to refute them and then claim victory? Otherwise you are going to be at great pains to explain how stating that Einstien believed in God and Stalin did not is somehow to be understood as Einstien believing in Christianity.

There are only two sure ways to come to know that God is and is personal.

a) have a personal encounter with him
b) deduce from the fact that we are persons, and didn't create ourselves, that whatever is the ultimate cause of human life, that thing must be personal too.

The latter 'proof' is the philosophical/metaphysical path. The former is the religious one, the "revelatatory" one.

If you don't believe in "God" or a "personal God" it's not because you have "proof of non-existence" it's just that either a) you THINK your reasons are sufficient or b) you haven't thought of the traditional 'proofs' with any depth.

Because our minds CAN come to know THAT God exists, doesn't mean all human beings DO know THAT he exists at all time, just as not all human beings come to understand calculus although it IS knowable.

Quoted: Quoted: read my post above Nowhere in your post do you even begin to pretend to be able to demonstrate that I stated that Einstien believed in a "personal" God. The idea that he believed in the same God Christians believe in is ludicrous. Are you simply making up statements so as to refute them and then claim victory? Otherwise you are going to be at great pains to explain how stating that Einstien believed in God and Stalin did not is somehow to be understood as Einstien believing in Christianity.

God has a specific definition to most people.  By saying that Einstein believed in God to a primarily Christian audience, you are saying that Einstein believed in a personal God, unless you make clarification.

When you contract his view with someone like Stalin (a communist and atheist) to a group of conservatives, it only reinforces the view that he believed in the God that Christians , Jews, and Muslims (some debate on the last) all worship.

Einstien's own words show that to a Jesuit (and presumably any other Christian) he would be considered an atheist.  

Your argument combines the fallacies of argument from authority and a sly version of an adhominem by implying that anyone who doesn't believe in God is allying themselves with the likes of Stalin.

The sad part is I believe you are smart enough to know all this, and yet you repeatedly post the same tripe.    

Quoted:

God has a specific definition to most people.  By saying that Einstein believed in God to a primarily Christian audience, you are saying that Einstein believed in a personal God, unless you make clarification.
I was not saying it to a Christian audience but to an individual person with no religious beliefs whatsoever, and you know this fact full well. You, either deliberately or not, lied about it and are not now able to give that lie any tenable support. And this quite pathetic attempt I would have thought beneath you.

Your argument combines the fallacies of argument from authority and a sly version of an adhominem by implying that anyone who doesn't believe in God is allying themselves with the likes of Stalin.
There were not logical fallices in my post as it's intention was not to argue the point from logic, but instead to point out by imitation the incongruous reasoning of his post. Which for some reason you did not notice or decided to overlook.

Logic , door number one or door number two. If you have faith in God and are right you go to heaven, if you are wrong you lose nothing. If you have no faith in God and are right no problem, if you are wrong you will fry like a worm on a hot rock

Quoted: Quoted: God has a specific definition to most people.  By saying that Einstein believed in God to a primarily Christian audience, you are saying that Einstein believed in a personal God, unless you make clarification. I was not saying it to a Christian audience but to an individual person with no religious beliefs whatsoever, and you know this fact full well. You, either deliberately or not, lied about it and are not now able to give that lie any tenable support. And this quite pathetic attempt I would have thought beneath you. Your argument combines the fallacies of argument from authority and a sly version of an adhominem by implying that anyone who doesn't believe in God is allying themselves with the likes of Stalin. There were not logical fallices in my post as it's intention was not to argue the point from logic, but instead to point out by imitation the incongruous reasoning of his post. Which for some reason you did not notice or decided to overlook.

Your post was made on arfcom.  By default your audience is primarily conservatives and Christians.    
But you already knew that.

And I didn't overlook it, I even said I would give you extra credit for pointing out the logical fallacy in the original post.  

If you were trying to use a Reductio ad absurdum, then its bad form to do so without stating so at the end.   I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in school.

Well now you know, and as they say "knowing is half the battle"

If God does not exist, there is no such thing as right or wrong.
There may be things you would prefer people do, and things you prefer people would not do, but there is no RIGHT or WRONG.

If there is no God, how can you condemn a pedophile?
Who are you to say his love of children is "wrong"?
If there is no God, why should you remain faithful to your wife?
A blowjob on the side, every now and again, isn't "wrong"

When you deny the existence of God, you open up a realm in which there is no good, or evil, only different choices.

Quoted: Logic , door number one or door number two. If you have faith in God and are right you go to heaven, if you are wrong you lose nothing. If you have no faith in God and are right no problem, if you are wrong you will fry like a worm on a hot rock

Pascal's wager has been shown to be false many times in this forum and the general forum.  

Quoted: If God does not exist, there is no such thing as right or wrong. There may be things you would prefer people do, and things you prefer people would not do, but there is no RIGHT or WRONG. If there is no God, how can you condemn a pedophile? Who are you to say his love of children is "wrong"? If there is no God, why should you remain faithful to your wife? A blowjob on the side, every now and again, isn't "wrong" When you deny the existence of God, you open up a realm in which there is no good, or evil, only different choices.

That is a fallacious argument.    Your saying the only 2 choices in existence are Moral Absolutism  and Moral Relativism.

There is a middle ground.  Moral Universalism.    There are some things that the vast majority of cultures have agreed are wrong.  

We don't need a supernatural deity to tell us slavery is wrong.    We decided as a group that slavery was wrong (although it took some longer than others).  This in spite of the fact that the Bible (and apparently the Christian God if you believe the Bible is his word) has no issue with slavery itself.

Quoted: Quoted: If God does not exist, there is no such thing as right or wrong. There may be things you would prefer people do, and things you prefer people would not do, but there is no RIGHT or WRONG. If there is no God, how can you condemn a pedophile? Who are you to say his love of children is "wrong"? If there is no God, why should you remain faithful to your wife? A blowjob on the side, every now and again, isn't "wrong" When you deny the existence of God, you open up a realm in which there is no good, or evil, only different choices. That is a fallacious argument.    Your saying the only 2 choices in existence are Moral Absolutism  and Moral Relativism. There is a middle ground.  Moral Universalism.    There are some things that the vast majority of cultures have agreed are wrong.     We don't need a supernatural deity to tell us slavery is wrong.    We decided as a group that slavery was wrong (although it took some longer than others).  This in spite of the fact that the Bible (and apparently the Christian God if you believe the Bible is his word) has no issue with slavery itself.

I agree.
But...you cannot say that slavery is "absolutly" wrong.
You are just a person.
Who are you to tell me what is right, and what is wrong?
Without a Supreme Arbiter, "right" and "wrong" become like beauty - all a matter of opinion.

Quoted:
Your post was made on arfcom.  By default your audience is primarily conservatives and Christians.    
Which, again, does not have anything to do with anything. It was a response to an individual. It is more than obvious that this was a knee-jerk response tainted with your own biases and prejudices. No other conclusion can be drawn, especially after your rather hobbled attempt at an explanation.
 

And I didn't overlook it, I even said I would give you extra credit for pointing out the logical fallacy in the original post.  
If you were trying to use a Reductio ad absurdum, then its bad form to do so without stating so at the end.   I'm surprised they didn't teach you that in school.
You are going to have to explain how not stating "oh, by the way, by using your reasoning extrapolation to point out the untenablity of your conclusions I was demonstrating what in Latin is known as, Reductio ad absurdum", somehow would have made the point more clear to him.  No doubt you would have then accused me of being pedantic.

Quoted:
There is a middle ground.  Moral Universalism.    There are some things that the vast majority of cultures have agreed are wrong.
Do remember the obligations of hospitality when the majority of cultures decide that keeping and bearing arms is wrong and they come knocking on your door.  

We don't need a supernatural deity to tell us slavery is wrong.    We decided as a group that slavery was wrong (although it took some longer than others).  This in spite of the fact that the Bible (and apparently the Christian God if you believe the Bible is his word) has no issue with slavery itself.

You seem to want to overlook the fact that it was Christianity that in the end did away with slavery.

Quoted: So I spoke with a friend of mine here a week or so ago about this stuff, he was telling me the story about the guy that 'god' let the devil kill his entire family, took all the guy's money and health and left him to die and the desert.  In the end the guy would not give up in believing in 'god'.  What was that guys name?

Job.  He's got an entire book in the Bible!

Like Only Christians beleive in otherworldly things? I think ths person just has a chip on their shoulder about Christianity. Its not religion per say they have a beef with, its Christianity in particular. If a Jew actually believes in the writings of the Torah are they just as stupid and backwards as a Christian who believes the same? I am not saying you should single them out or include them in your condemnation of a particular line of tought. I am saying it just seems like you have a particular problem with one of thousands of religions thet believe in the Supernatural. Then again Christianity is the safe religion to pick on. Pick on the Jews and you will be rightly branded as an antisemite and harrased until you leave the site. Pick on the Muslims enough and ask TRH what happens. Christianity is the safest religion to use as an exaple to bash religion in general, it popular and openly PC to bash and riddicule. IMHO (probably biased) your picking on of Christianity in particular even though they beleive in much of the same as a Jew or Muslim (no not everything but much of the supernatural in common with each)  makes you no different than an antisemite or anti muslim. or whatever anti.

Certainly entitled to your opintion and if you felt the need to come in here and explain yourself, I can understand. Some folks who are into their respected religions feel the need to do the same. Its really no different than a religious person walking up to an atheist or someone of a different faith and telling them that their thought process is flawed and they should believe in their religion. Really not much different at all. Every couple of months some  people like yourself stop by and knock on my door to do just the very same. To tell me what I believe is basically flawed and I should basically  believe what they do. Maybe not directly say I should believe as they do , but make enough remarks to give me the impression that they feel. They are superior and until I see it their way, I will always be inferior because of my thought process and individuality. The only difference between some people in that attitude are , some are religious and others are not but overall they are flip sides of the same coin.

"Why doesn't he show up tomorrow and put and end to all of this?
Why did 2006 years ago he send his kid down to do his dirty work?
Like so many men in todays world having what they call a 'second family' after the first one ended and ditched the old lady. Have another kid. How come he picked 2006 years ago, what was the signifigance of the time then."

not unreasonable questions, and in my opinion most any christian who's honest would tell you at some point they have questioned such things, and there's not always easily readily answers, an almighty God's perfect plan wouldn't be dependant on His creation's approval nor their demands.
But that said, you seem to be looking to convince yourself there is no God, as if that's what you'd prefer, more so than you seem to be really seeking God.


"How come no one has parted the seas lately?
How come no one has built an ark lately?
How come no one has walked down the mountain with some new stuff?"

Because times are different after the life of Jesus and after His reserrection.

As for the 1st post, I believe in God because of the testimony of Jesus Christ.
If a person doesn't know or believe in God, seek the truth about Jesus and His life. Study His life, His disciples lives, the times He lived in., ect.

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life", and that no man goes to the Father but through Him..

Quoted: Quoted: If God does not exist, there is no such thing as right or wrong. There may be things you would prefer people do, and things you prefer people would not do, but there is no RIGHT or WRONG. If there is no God, how can you condemn a pedophile? I would keep that analogy to yourself if you are trying to convince me of something because what I know of pedophiles the biggest majority come from the church.

that is false, the majority of them are televised and reported by the media more so becasue they are involved in the church and it makes it look worse, but the majority are not.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If God does not exist, there is no such thing as right or wrong. There may be things you would prefer people do, and things you prefer people would not do, but there is no RIGHT or WRONG. If there is no God, how can you condemn a pedophile? I would keep that analogy to yourself if you are trying to convince me of something because what I know of pedophiles the biggest majority come from the church. that is false, the majority of them are televised and reported by the media more so becasue they are involved in the church and it makes it look worse, but the majority are not.

"Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view -- adopted by the Boy Scouts -- is that sodomites cause sodomy. (Assume all the usual disclaimers here about most gay men not molesting boys, most Muslims being peaceful, and so on.)

It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests -- more than 90 percent -- are accused of molesting teen-age boys. Indeed, the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse prompted The New York Times to engage in its classic "Where's Waldo" reporting style, in which the sex of the victims is studiedly hidden amid a torrent of genderless words, such as the "teen-ager," the "former student," the "victim" and the "accuser."
-Ann Coulter
www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter032102.asp

1GUNRUNNER -- I can't say I'm surprised at the responses here.  It follows the pattern of this forum almost exactly.

You question christianity in some manner, or some aspect of christianity.
You get told you're wrong.
"Why" is asked.
"Because I said so, thats why" is the answer.
"Proof?"
"Because I said so"
"But where's the proof"
"I'M A CHRISTIAN AND CHRISTIANITY IS ALWAYS, 100% THE ABSOLUTE CORRECT ANSWER, AND YOU'RE GOING TO TO HELL IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE LIKE I DO"

You will NEVER get a christian on this board to admit that what they belive in might even POSSIBLY be wrong.  THAT is what christianity is -- never having to admit you're wrong.  After all, they can always point to the book and say "its in there", forgetting that if you don't believe the book is truthful in the first place, using it as evidence of their point is doomed to failure.

In some ways, they're like the democrats.  They cannot comprehend that people do not think like them.  They cry for "tolerance" yet comdemn anyone who believes differently.

Quite the contrary, I am already and have been for years convinced there is none, I am trying find something/anything to convince me otherwise.

I can't seek what I don't believe exists.

But that's sort of what I'm suggesting, your mind is and was already made up, so I don't think any dabbling into Christianity is likely to produce any further belief in God.

no fanoftheblackrifle, many christians will tell you they've been wrong before, are wrong and will be wrong again about things. And many will admit there are many unanswered questions about God, but christianity is different from any other religion in that it is a belief that there is only 1 way to Heaven, and that is through Jesus Christ.

It is also an overdone and wrong argument to suggest Christians think they are without fault or better than anyone else, after all Christianity is a belief that 1 must come to Jesus "as a sinner", and that they get into Heaven not by being without sin or by anything they do, but by that which Jesus did in their place. And that forgivness is there for the taking by "all". Jesus died for all, not me or any other Christian, but for "all".

Quoted: THAT is what christianity is -- never having to admit you're wrong.

Its good to see you are so open minded.

Do you have any other stereotypes about Jews? Hindus? Muslims? I would hope not.

good to read from you wildboar. Have you been on the other forums any recently?

Quoted: good to read from you wildboar. Have you been on the other forums any recently?

Good to see you too. I stop in the old hang out once in a while but I dont post there anymore.

Quoted: I have been looking into Christianity here lately and the more I dig the less I seem to care about it.  The stories and tales are so far fetched it is like a fairy tale gone weird.   I guess I am getting down to the bottomline of.... If you can believe there is some guy that lives in sky that you can't see, what could I get you not to believe?  Seems to me if you can be convinced of that, there is not much that you could not be convinced into believing. Sorry to be so brutal about it but, I am definately not getting it.

We are all skeptics. We just tend to be skeptical about different things.  We are all naive.  We are just naive about different things.  I like the following poem.

Agnostic Musings
by RK Boehm

If I take science at its word
And yet believe thought I've not seen
        The tiny sparks of vital force
        Which whirl and dance a spinning course
        Deep down at matter's very source
Must I reject as too absurd
The sight of elves upon the green?

If I admit grim powers prowl
Within the shadows of men's brains
        In mental darkness wandering
        Unruly sov'reigns governing
        Like Oedipus the blinded king
Dare I admit that demons foul
Infect this world with secret stains?

I see but stock-still specks of light
When I behold the galaxies
       Immense celestial systems race
       Across the centuries of space
       And rival light's fantastic pace ---
Bright angels might escape my sight
If I mistake such things as these

If life itself is oddly styled
And full of novel, startling twists
        Of crazy things like getting born
        Or strange, like leaving sleep each morn,
        Or wild, like roses wearing thorns,
Would it be crazy, strange or wild
If I believed that God exists?

Since life holds more than meets the eye
And things are not quite what they seem ---
         Hard stones are fields of energies
         Whcih spin through vast interstices
         And flocks of light are galaxies ---
Perhaps a barn-born Baby's cry
Contained the Voice which framed this scheme.

Quoted: Quite the contrary, I am already and have been for years convinced there is none, I am trying find something/anything to convince me otherwise. I can't seek what I don't believe exists.

Then honestly why did you start this thread, did you really think someone here would convince you there was a GOD ??

or did you want to poke fun at Christians??

Quoted: Quoted: Then honestly why did you start this thread, did you really think someone here would convince you there was a GOD ?? or did you want to poke fun at Christians?? I was hoping someone who was in my position could help me out.  I always try and keep my options and ears open.

I have to ask why just ask the Christians? We are not the only folks who believe in the supernatural. Last I checked the Jews believed in a God, as do other religions represented in this forum. Why leave them out of your question and or assesment?