Oops..forgot this part..

"If a person who practices these religions finds these words insulting
perhaps they should stand back and take a birds-eye view of precisely
what it is that they are placing their faith in."

I place my faith in God. And that makes me "ignorant" because...?

"These words are an accurate description of these religious faiths by
their very defintion."


I completely disagree -- for example, my religion is not based on
"superstitition" and "magic," but feel free to believe as you wish.

Sheila wrote:
“I place my faith in God. And that makes me "ignorant" because...?”

See Mike. I never once made a personal accusation toward this lady, yet
she is already personally insulted by my posts thus far.

First off Sheila, I have never even remotely implied that you are
‘ignorant’. You seem to have deduced that implication on your own
somehow.

I do not wish to argue whether or not you personally have placed your
faith in ‘God’.

However, I will argue in general that people who place their faith in
the Bible are not placing their faith in ‘God’ at all, but rather in the
writings of men.

For example, there are no direct writings or direct quotes of Jesus
anywhere in the Bible. All that exists in the bible are hear-say
stories written by the disciples of Jesus. If you place your faith in
those stories you are not placing your faith in ‘God’ but rather you are
placing your faith in the stories written by men who claim to have known
a man that they believe may have been god.

In fact, this is true throughout the entire doctrine. The best you can
do is place your faith in the men who wrote the stories. So I’m
unconvinced when you say that you place your faith in ‘God’. What you
are really doing is placing your faith in the writings of ancient
doctrines.

I’ve read accounts of how the bible was put together by King James.
This man personally selected which stories would be placed into the
collection of writings that we now call ‘The Bible’. So in a very real
sense if you place your faith in the Bible you are actually placing your
faith in King James. For example, there were many ancient doctrines
that were considered for inclusion into the bible that contained mention
of reincarnation. But King James decided that he didn’t like the idea
of reincarnation because it didn’t match up with his idea of how the
whole story should be, so he rejected any and all doctrines that
contained any mention of reincarnation. In short, King James was
basically ‘writing’ the bible by his choices of what would and would not
be included in the final book.

So I suggest that people who buy into this religion are not putting
their faith in ‘God’ at all but rather they are putting their faith in a
man named King James.

I hold that if a person really wants to put their faith in ‘God’ they
only need focus on the world around them. The world around us was
unquestionably ‘written’ by god. No need to put our faith in any
writings of men.

Scientists are the only people who are genuinely putting their faith in
God.

Interestingly enough Abra, you’ve mentioned several times that you are a
scientist, so I’m going to assume that you are more than passingly
familiar with current research methods and the dangers of logical
fallacies.
Basic knowledge of history, unfortunately, doesn’t make you a
theological expert. Allow me to give you a more “mathematical”
opposition to your statements.
The issues that you have a problem with are labeled as “matters of
faith”. In fact, you base all of your criticisms around these, citing
contextual problems with the Bible because of a supposed corruption of
the source. Of course, being so observant of history, you must realize
that this is a problem with every historical document. It just so
happens that the Bible is one of the most verifiable and reproduced
historical documents today. While some wording has changed, the message
itself is relatively intact. Impressive for a document whose origins
span more than one millennium.
Ah, but I said that I was going to couch my example with an example that
might give you a different perspective, yes? Ok, as a scientist, in your
studies, have you come across the mathematical “truth” that you cannot
walk across a room? For the benefit of those that might not have heard
of this, allow me to explain. Mathematically, in order for you to cross
a room of any length, you must first cross half that distance. Of
course, mathematically, you must cross half THAT distance, and
interestingly enough, you can theoretically divide by two an infinite
number of times. Of course, we all know that we CAN in fact physically
cross the distance of a room, so how can this mathematical difference
with reality exist?
Because Math and Science are very accurate, but as a result very
limited. This is why there is Okham’s Razor, constant debate over
fundamental scientific theories, and a need for adaptation even within
science. As new information becomes present, we must adjust our
thinking. Faith has its place in every day life, we have a “feeling”
about certain things, and even though we haven’t measured and analyzed
every angle, these “feelings” are often correct. With all of Science’ s
explanations of how, there is not a single answer of why. To be honest,
as far as science is concerned, there isn’t a need for a why.
A more intelligent man than I once said, “An atheist is a person with no
visible means of support.” When religion supplies a reason to go on,
provides a reward for righteous behavior, and a faith that Justice will
be met; how is this belief damaging. Again, I am not religious, nor do I
have a need to be. I’m happy with the world spinning as it is.
Also, you didn’t quite answer my question, just slightly side-stepped
it. How DO you explain away the ability to acknowledge individual
responsibility with the actions of an organization? These “religions”
and “churches” are hardly doctrines that promote ignorance. It is
mankind’s character that resists change, not the belief. A belief is a
guide that people often live by, but you don’t blame the alcohol for the
car accident, you blame the drunk driver.

"See Mike. I never once made a personal accusation toward this lady, yet
she is already personally insulted by my posts thus far. First off
Sheila, I have never even remotely implied that you re ‘ignorant’. You
seem to have deduced that implication on your own somehow."

Ummm...okayyyy. If you say so. No, what I'm gathering is that you think
that people who believe in God and who follow a particular religion (for
example, Christianity) are ignorant. And, because I AM a Christian, that
would include me, would it not?

"I do not wish to argue whether or not you personally have placed your
faith in ‘God’."

Well, good, because there's no effective argument for it, meaning,
you're not in a position to make that kind of a determination. Also, why
is 'God' in quotes, may I ask?

"However, I will argue in general that people who place their faith in
the Bible are not placing their faith in ‘God’ at all, but rather in the
writings of men."

I don't believe the Bible is meant to be taken literally, 100 percent of
the time, but I do believe that it IS "God-inspired," and is not just
some sort of "fable," as you seem to believe it is.

"For example, there are no direct writings or direct quotes of Jesus
anywhere in the Bible. All that exists in the bible are hearsay...

Oh? And you know this because...? We could state that ANY history book,
any quoted matter, is "heresay," then, by that reasoning.

...stories written by the disciples of Jesus. If you place your faith in
those stories you are not placing your faith in ‘God’ but rather you are
placing your faith in the stories written by men who claim to have known
a man that they believe may have been God."

There are words in the Bible purported to have been uttered by Jesus
Christ Himself, but ...that's beside the point.

If you were to tell me about a good friend of yours, whom you thought
was a "spectacular person," just because I hadn't met him, had never
heard about him, would you feel offended if I called you liar or a fool
and said that what you had to say was completely hearsay?


"In fact, this is true throughout the entire doctrine. The best you can
do is place your faith in the men who wrote the stories. So I’m
unconvinced when you say that you place your faith in ‘God’."

Again with the quote around God's name. Hmm.

"What you are really doing is placing your faith in the writings of
ancient doctrines."

No, that's not what I'm doing; what I'm doing is placing my faith in
GOD.

Because you don't believe in Him, I certainly don't expect you to
understand or even have a grasp on how this can be possible.

But that's okay. Again, you are certainly free to believe what you wish.
I just get tired of people praising someone who's clearly trying to
demonstrate that he is so much more "intellectually superior" because
he's "figured out" there is no "proof" of God's existence. Frankly, I
think it takes a hell of a lot more intelligence TO believe, TO have
faith, than it does not to.

I have faith in spite of there sometimes being seeming "evidence" to the
contrary. I have faith also BECAUSE of direct evidence I've seen and
witnessed many times in my life. Have I seen Him personally? No. But
among several things that I perceive to prove tangible existence of God,
I also had a near-death experience once that, I can assure you, could
not be explained away simply in "scientific terms."

I’ve read accounts of how the bible was put together by King James.
This man personally selected which stories would be placed into the
collection of writings that we now call ‘The Bible’. So in a very real
sense if you place your faith in the Bible you are actually placing your
faith in King James. For example, there were many ancient doctrines
that were considered for inclusion into the bible that contained mention
of reincarnation. But King James decided that he didn’t like the idea
of reincarnation because it didn’t match up with his idea of how the
whole story should be, so he rejected any and all doctrines that
contained any mention of reincarnation. In short, King James was
basically ‘writing’ the bible by his choices of what would and would not
be included in the final book.

So I suggest that people who buy into this religion are not putting
their faith in ‘God’ at all but rather they are putting their faith in a
man named King James.

I hold that if a person really wants to put their faith in ‘God’ they
only need focus on the world around them. The world around us was
unquestionably ‘written’ by god. No need to put our faith in any
writings of men.

Scientists are the only people who are genuinely putting their faith in
God.

Hehe

Forgot to mention, that when you claim a belief is ignorant, you are
including the people who share it. Language can be tricky, but if you
continue an action you shouldn't be surprised when you get the same
results, ne?

Rather, either stick to your guns and say that people are as ignorant as
their religions, or say that you unfortunately don't share those
beliefs. The fact of the matter is; belief in EXISTANCE and REALITY
requires a certain amount of faith. We are limited by our senses,
controlled by neurons that stop firing every 1 millionth of a second,
which means that we are missing out on 1 millionth of a second every
minute of every day.

Continued...

I’ve read accounts of how the bible was put together by King James. This
man personally selected which stories would be placed into the
collection of writings that we now call ‘The Bible’. So in a very real
sense if you place your faith in the Bible you are actually placing your
faith in King James.

I disagree.

For example, there were many ancient doctrines that were considered for
inclusion into the bible that contained mention
of reincarnation. But King James decided that he didn’t like the idea of
reincarnation because it didn’t match up with his idea of how the whole
story should be, so he rejected any and all doctrines that contained any
mention of reincarnation. In short, King James was basically ‘writing’
the bible by his choices of what would and would not be included in the
final book.

Well, this is a tad "unnecessarily deep" for me. I have a simple faith
in God, I don't need to dissect whether or not King James did "this or
that." The basic doctrine of the Bible is to believe in the Lord and to
treat your fellow man as you would have him treat you.

So I suggest that people who buy into..

EXCUSE ME? "Buy into?" LOL...

...this religion are not putting their faith in ‘God’ at all but rather
they are putting their faith in a man named King James.

Wrong.

"I hold that if a person really wants to put their faith in ‘God’ they
only need focus on the world around them. The world around us was
unquestionably ‘written’ by god. No need to put our faith in any
writings of men."

I do completely agree that God is everywhere in our world, however,
you've even stated that you don't believe in "God," that you don't know
what or who He is.

"Scientists are the only people who are genuinely putting their faith in
God."

Umm....run that by me again???

"Scientists are the only people who are genuinely putting their faith in
God."

Sheila wrote:
”Umm....run that by me again???”

Yes, that was a mistake on my part to post that sentence because that’s
not really what I meant at all. I was using the term ‘scientists’ there
in a very abstract sense. I have a tendency to give words an extremely
wide berth of abstraction.

What I really meant was that only people who genuinely put their faith
in what can be experientially known about the world we live in are
putting their faith in God.

I was using the term ‘scientists’ to mean ‘people who put their faith in
what can be experientially known’. But many people do that who would
not think of themselves as ‘scientists’.

So I do wish that I had never used the word ‘scientists’ because that
was actually quite misleading to what I meant to convey. Bad choice of
words on my part.

I see a lot of words posted here by several people so it will take me a
while to read them and response appropriately.

I believe that what is "experientially known" is proof of the existence
of God.

P.S.

...but faith also factors into it, because we can't "see" Him, we can't
"prove" (in that sense) that He's "real."

Sheila wrote:
“I believe that what is ‘experientially known’ is proof of the existence
of God.”

I do too.

Totmokun wrote:
“Ok, as a scientist, in your studies, have you come across the
mathematical “truth” that you cannot walk across a room?”

You bring up some interesting topics that could become an entire thread
on their own. I’m am extremely familiar with the paradox that you speak
of here. It’s is one of Zeno’s paradoxes of motion. Zeno is one of my
greatest heroes, and he has been since my early childhood.

You speak of a ‘mathematical truth’, and ironically I’m currently
writing a book on that very topic. And in fact, I devote an entire
chapter to Zeno’s paradox that you mention here.

To begin with, it’s really not a ‘mathematical’ problem at all. It
never was. It’s based on the presumption that the universe is a
continuum. Zeno simply says that IF the universe is a continuum, then
motion is impossible because before you can get to any point you must
first get to the half-way point, and to get to that half-way point you
must get to the point half-way to that, etc, ad infinitum.

Well, if the universe is a continuum that means that you can’t move
because you could never get to the first point, you’d always be stuck
having to move to a point half-way between you and it, etc, forever.

Well, ironically. mathematicians tried to solve this problem and
actually even believe that they did solve it. They claim that calculus
solves it. However, I can show convincing proof why calculus doesn’t
solve the problem. But that’s really entirely unimportant, because a
physicist named Max Planck has actually solved Zeno’s paradox. How? By
discovering that the universe isn’t a continuum, it’s quantities as
there is a ‘least action’ that can be taken. Therefore there is a least
distance that you can move. So there’s no longer any question about
getting to half-way points. You necessarily MUST jump from one point to
another without traversing the distance in-between. This is the nature
of the quantum leap.

However, even today mathematicians still believe that they have solved
Zeno’s paradox mathematically. But they are wrong, their solution is
logically incorrect and I show this in my book. The reason we can move
is not because of calculus, but simply because the universe isn’t a
continuum like most of the early Greek philosophers thought.

I might mention also that every scientific theory is not something that
we should put our faith in. We should only put our faith in direct
‘observations’. It’s the nature of the universe we are concerned with,
not frivolous untested scientific theory.

A good example of this is a very popular theory in physics called
‘String Theory’. Thus far, String Theory is entirely mathematical with
absolutely no observational evidence to support it whatsoever. In
truth, it’s not even ‘science’ at this point, and String Theorists are
the very first to admit this. So everything that is being studied in
the name of ‘science’ it not actually even ‘science’ in the truest
meaning of the word. Things aren’t really ‘science’ until there is
observational evidence to back them up. Most ‘theories’ on the cutting
edge of physics today are not yet ‘science’ because there is no evidence
to back them up. Yet people called ‘scientists’ are working on them in
the name of ‘science’. The idea is that they will eventually make
predictions that can be observed and then move into the realm of true
science.

Ok, so much for all of that, that was kind of off topic anyway.

Totmokun wrote:
“With all of Science’ s explanations of how, there is not a single
answer of why. To be honest, as far as science is concerned, there isn’t
a need for a why. A more intelligent man than I once said, “An atheist
is a person with no visible means of support.”

Believing in a god doesn’t provide an answer for why either. That just
shifts the burden of answering the question onto the god. God must know
‘why’. There, it’s settled.

I don’t buy those kinds of arguments. As far as I’m concerned I know
the answer to the question ‘why?’.

Life.

That’s why.

At least that’s why we exist - so that the universe can perceive itself.

What would religious people do if they go to heaven and serve a god that
clearly wants to be served and worshiped. Is that their answer to
‘why?”. Are they going to be satisfied with that. Their only purpose
is to serve and worship an eternal god?

What if they ask that god why he exists and he replies, “I have no clue”

Then what?

Religions haven’t given any better explanations of ‘why’ things exist
than anyone else. They just don’t question it. They just assume that
God will know all of the answers including why he exists.

Then it will all be a nice little clean finite package. No more
questions. Everything will be known completely.

Then what do you do? Sit around for the rest of eternity with no
questions to ponder? Sounds like a boring eternity to me. I just don’t
see any reason to buy into that notion. Where the experiential evidence
that things are like that? It’s all just speculation and myth. No
questions of ‘why’ have been answered. They just been put off on the
assumption that they’ll be revealed later. That’s not answering the
question ‘why?.

So I disagree that religions answer the question ‘why?’ just by saying
that there’s a god. That’s no answer.

Besides, science doesn’t deny the existence of a god. It simply
suggests that if god exists then god most likely created the universe in
the way we observe it to be. So if you want to know god better, then
learn about god’s creation.

I see that you seem to have some kind of an aversion toward considering
God as a "person," Abra. This is because you put His name in quotes and
use lowercase "g," as well as saying "a" god, etc.

You state you believe in the existence of "a god," but obviously that's
not necessarily "the" God (of the Bible). What/who is God, to you, then?
What significance does He (or she/it) have in your spiritual life, if
any?

WELL IT DOES'NT REALLY MATTER WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF ME, I LOVE JESUS AND
HE SAYS TO HONOR HIM FIRST. DID THE PROPHETS WORRY BOUT WHAT ANYONE
THOUGHT OF THEM NO IT IS MY JOB TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHAT HE DID FOR ME
AND MAYBE HE COULD DO THE SAME FOR THEM.
I DO N OT CARE WHAT THEY THINK OF ME, THEM AND THE EMENRY.
I WILL KEEP ON GIVING MY TESTIMONY THANK YOU.

Sheila wrote:
“What/who is God, to you, then? What significance does He (or she/it)
have in your spiritual life, if any?”

I’ve already posted a general idea of how I think of god in the
following thread.

http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/20021?page=4

Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence
for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have
to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the
reasons which suggest that God exists.

But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of
there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained
away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked
on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their
thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with
the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless,
because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the
moon.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that
there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have
suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to
know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when
you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you.

The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came
about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice,
the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots
appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to
prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from
non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?

Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of
precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God
is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause,
without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting
to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.

This is not to say that if enough people believe something it is
therefore true. Scientists, for example, have discovered new truths
about the universe which overruled previous conclusions. But as science
has progressed, no scientific discovery has countered the numerical
likelihood of an intelligent mind being behind it all. In fact, the more
science discovers about human life and the universe, the more complex
and precisely designed we realize these to be. Rather than pointing away
from God, evidence mounts further toward an intelligent source. But
objective evidence is not all.

There is a much larger issue. Throughout history, billions of people in
the world have attested to their firm, core convictions about God's
existence--arrived at from their subjective, personal relationship with
God. Millions today could give detailed account of their experience with
God. They would point to answered prayer and specific, amazing ways God
has met their needs, and guided them through important personal
decisions. They would offer, not only a description of their beliefs,
but detailed reports of God's actions in their lives. Many are sure that
a loving God exists and has shown himself to be faithful to them. If you
are a skeptic, can you say with certainty: "I am absolutely right and
they all are wrong about God"?

Montana, I can talk about God all day long. I have as a matter of fact
been attacked, called names (not cussing names) been told I was stupid
for my beliefs. I don't know why?
I understand that people are wary or scared , mad or resentful and many
more things I have not mentioned here.

Anger abounds with people that do not agree. I just want to be able to
speak my beliefs as those that speak theirs, with out all the conflict.
But, it is all but impossible to do that.

I frankly am quite thrilled to read this, without seeing all the hatred
and anger that is usual to these threads.

I was once one of those that did not believe, or at least had no proof
of His existance, til it was in my face real. There are many times. I
will not go into that.

Thanks for this thread. I have stayed out due to the horrible responses
these usually get.

Kat

JeanC, you have asked ‘abra.’ Why he puts God in quotation marks:

“ … Also, why is 'God' in quotes, may I ask?”

It would be IMO, because different ‘Gods’ are being addressed. As I
understand it, the point ‘Abra.’ is making about religions, is that it
corrupts one’s relationship to God, as HE understands God. He is not
attacking anyone, or anyone's interpretation of God, which includes
yours. He is sharing HIS OPINION.

It appears clear to me that the God ‘Abra.’ evokes, is a God with whom
each one of us would have a DIRECT relationship: the GOD IN ALL OF
US!!! Distinct form a ‘God’ that requires a religious ‘interface’.

Again, as I understand ‘abra.’ saying, to require an appropriately
called ‘dogma’ or 'superstitious' interface to be in contact with a God
whom requires ‘no interface’, is entertaining ignorance. If people
knew, and experienced this DIRECT touch and contact with God, why
would they keep requiring the distorting interface?

Again, that is 'abra's' opinion. But it raises a valid and insigtful
question FOR ALL. I fail to see the attack.

To attack him for his opinion, and legitimate question, is exactly IMO
what makes people 'angry' about 'religious' dogma, which often seems to
allow nothing other than its view of things.

Those whom don't share 'abra's' views, or anyone else's view, are not
being forced to 'convert', or adhere to his view of things.

The very topic of this forum is specifically asking people whom are
'opposed' to, and 'angry' about religions, to express their views!!!
'Abra' has done so very generously, and very insightfully in the
opinion of the host himself. We can't invite someone to speak on a
topic, and then beat him up because he does exactly that!

I understand all of that. And he's certainly welcome to his views, but
he doesn't have a "right" to state, (as though it were a fact, that is)
directly or indirectly, that people who follow an "organized religion"
are somehow ignorant or are somehow being "duped." And that's what I
gather from what he is saying. If I'm wrong about that, then he's more
than welcome to rebut.

To try to answer this question, "Why is it that the ppl who are most
"opposed" to religion are the most, shall I say this delicately,
"Obnoxious" about it?" I think it is a way to vent. Atleast for me
anyways. I say that because my dad was an Athiest and my mom a "Holy
Roller". Thanks to them I found a real love for arguing. I will argue
with myself even if there is nobody to argue with. I grew up being a
yoyo because I would live with my dad during the summers and my mom
during the rest of the year. They divorced before I was three. I can
remember have fantasies of being a religious prophet one night and
demonic priest the next night, lol.

Voileazur wrote:
“Again, as I understand ‘abra.’ saying, to require an appropriately
called ‘dogma’ or 'superstitious' interface to be in contact with a God
whom requires ‘no interface’, is entertaining ignorance. If people knew,
and experienced this DIRECT touch and contact with God, why would they
keep requiring the distorting interface?”

Thank you for posting this because this is precisely what I’ve been
trying to get at.

I see no connection between religion and god.

To me god is god. And religion is religion.

You don’t need a religion to know god.

Therefore, if you are worshiping a religion how can you come to know
god?

You’re necessarily getting a distorted picture of god.

Or as Sheila put it, you're being 'duped'

Yes, that's exactly how I feel.

You don't "need" a religion to know God, but having a religion is how
many people come to know God and, without some sort of religious
influence, at least, then some people would never know of Him.

I'd like to think that people are born with an innate ability to discern
right from wrong, but we simply aren't. We are born into sin, and,
therefore, I believe at least SOME religious influence is necessary.

I don't worship a religion, nor do I devoutly follow one. I don't tie
myself to a particular denomination, but I embrace the core values that
my "religion" has taught me.

If that makes me a "duped" individual, so be it. But, as free as you
should be to express your views, I'm also equally free to express mine.
And that is, I think it's wrong of you to accuse people who follow a
particular religion of being "duped," and it seems as though you think
that anyone who doesn't embrace YOUR interpretation of the subject is
practically a drooling idiot.