question to theists [Archive]

HansMustermann

15th June 2009, 04:29 AM

Well, let me illustrate deism via a computer game.

Let's say you're a brilliant CS student (only students wait until the last week to even get started;)) and at one point you pull 6 all nighters and make a whole simulated computer world. Sorta like The Sims but millions of little simulated people running around interacting with each other. Or like Sim City with each inhabitant actually simulated. You get the idea.

Do you exist inside their world? No. You can't be in that world even if you wanted to. You could make a character/avatar/whatever in it and tell it what to do, but it won't be you. Those people will never see _you_.

(Incidentally notice how Yahveh refuses to reveal his face to anyone.)

Can you interact with that world? Hell, yeah. With even the most minimalistic GUI, you could probably click and drag new mountains, send tornadoes, or whatever you wish. If the GUI can't do it, remember, you're the guy with the database and the source code. You can program anything you want to happen there.

E.g., if you want your avatar to be able to raise the dead, walk on water, and turn water into wine... neither of those are anything a semi-competent programmer couldn't code in half an hour. In fact, a really competent barstard could just save his inventory, edit the type of that beverage to wine, and force a reload. And if one night your brother got home drunk, had your character aggro the Romans and got nailed... well, who can blame you if you flip that flag in the database to "alive" again.

Or as an example which actually exists, take World Of Warcraft, created by Blizzard. This "Blizzard" entity doesn't exist anywhere inside the game it created. Even the best gnomish instruments wouldn't find any trace of that mythical "Blizzard" creator. Can Blizzard affect changes in its own game? Just read the patch notes or ask anyone who got nerfed at some point.

tsig

15th June 2009, 04:36 AM

Not that I'm a believer, but surely any God/god can by definition interact with reality if they/we/he/she/it wants to. Otherwise you've got a very nebulous kind of God. Whether God does interact with reality in these dark times is something else again.

With any luck God will post to the forum and clear this up. Unless he's already been banned for smiting other posters?

God seems to post here regularly. He just uses human posters here as sock puppets.

shuttlt

15th June 2009, 09:38 AM

Well, let me illustrate deism via a computer game.....
So in this analogy the crucifiction is kind of like the death of Lord British in Ultima Online? God forgot to set the invulnerability flag when his avatar logged in.

I suppose God normally enables noclipping as well.

HansMustermann

15th June 2009, 10:22 AM

Pretty much.

I mean, ask of anyone who had to admin a MUD or been GM on some MMO, and I'm sure you'll find some deep empathy for at least the God of Genesis. I mean, you finally got your game online, you have just one zone (the Garden of Eden;)) ready but you're proud of it anyway, and you just got your first two players. And you tell them to leave that tree alone 'cause it's still buggy and does funny things to your stats. What do they do as soon as you log out? Right. Any former MUD admin could have told you that :p

In fact, if they were anything like your average online player, I'd imagine the scene went something like this:

God: "Hi guys, I'm back. Where are you?"
Adam's voice: "No! Don't look! Don't look!"
God: "Did you guys find the hemp plants and the funny mushrooms already, or what are you blabbing about?"
Adam: "Umm, sorry, was naked."
God: "Duh, I knew I shouldn't have left that tree in here with you two."
Adam: "Eve made me do it!"
Eve: "That's so typically male! Blame the woman, eh?"
Adam: "Well, you did say it was all right."
Eve: "Yeah, but that's beside the point."
God: "Ok, so what's your story then?"
Eve: "The snake made me do it."
God: "A bloody snake made you do it?"
Eve: "Told me it was ok, see."
God: "A SNAKE talked to you? You have got to be kidding me."
Eve: "Tell him, snake."
The Snake: "Ssssss!"
Eve: "See! There he does it again!"
God: "You two must be either higher than a kite, or the most shameless liars, if you think I'm buying it that a snake told you to."
Adam: "Hey, don't look at me, I wasn't talking to any snakes. I was having a quickie with Fluffy here at the time."
God: "Yeah, righ... wait, you were having a WHAT? With the SHEEP?"
Adam: "Quickie, mate. 'S like a shag, only without the foreplay."
God: "I know what it means! Wait, FOREPLAY?"
Adam: "Oh yeah, that's how I discovered that milking thing I was telling you about yesterday."
God: "With the bloody SHEEP?"
Adam: "What can I say? She's a real vixen."
God: "No, I'm pretty sure it's a real SHEEP!"
Adam: "Hey, don't look at me, mate. I had no sense of good and evil at the time."
God: "And now that you do, you put fig leaves on the sheep too, because...?"
Adam: "Well, she's like one of the family."
God: "Now I'm affraid to ask why the horse is wearing a whole bush..."
Adam: *snickers* "Now that was Eve."
Eve: "Hey! I just thought it looked indecent with that... thing hanging all the way to the ground!"
Adam: "Yeah, right!"
Eve: "Typical!"
God: "Ok, so let's go back to the apples. So the snake told you to? Right?"
Eve: "Yeah."
God: "You know what? I had it up to here with you two! Out! Out! Out!"
Adam: "What about the snake, mate? It was his fault."
The Snake: "Sssssss!"
God: "Yeah, right... Oh well... The snake gets to crawl on its belly and can't speak any more. Happy now?"
Eve: "Well, it already didn't..."
Adam: "Ssht! Shut up before you get us in bigger trouble!"
God: "Now, OUT! Go f*** yourselves for all I care!"
Eve: "What was that last part?"
Adam: "Let's just say, 'go forth and multiply', but not in those exact words."

MG1962

15th June 2009, 10:25 AM

if so then what logical process and evidence led you to that conclusion?

PNB

I will do you a deal - You explain logically why your parents fell in love and I will explain logically how I know God exists

bobcarp

15th June 2009, 10:58 AM

His parents fell in love for the same reason you believe in god... emotional response.

MG1962

15th June 2009, 11:04 AM

His parents fell in love for the same reason you believe in god... emotional response.

Exactly - so unless anyone other than First Office Spock can quantify a logical explanation for emotional response. I suspect the OP asked an unanswerable question....But I suspect he knew that when he did it

HansMustermann

15th June 2009, 11:12 AM

MG1962

15th June 2009, 11:26 AM

Well, my parents fell in love for the all logical grounds, according to themselves. They're both complete nerds, and it went accordingly Spock-like. She wanted someone smart and tall so her kids would be like that too, and he wanted to get laid. Not the most romantic story, I'll grant that, but there you go.

Now it's your turn to explain why you believe in God. I believe that was the deal :p

No - cause there is no explanation based in logic that she had to pick him against all the other tall geeky candidates out there. The reality is, something about him sparked her instincts - He responded, and the world is graced by you.

My belief in God is very much the same. I can tell you the exact instance I began to really believe in God, I could describe the incident in great detail, what I felt, sensed etc. However because it was an entirely internal process I can not prove to you using any form of logic that I am right.

And because of that, I have a very strict rule about not challenging other people in what they believe, dont believe etc etc. It is none of my business really. We all walk our paths for the reasons we do.

That is something very common in the human condition. Music, art, emotion, a lot more of who and what we are is based on instinct and internal emotions than logic

Logic gets us to the Moon, emotion makes us look up and dream about doing it

bobcarp

15th June 2009, 11:30 AM

Exactly - so unless anyone other than First Office Spock can quantify a logical explanation for emotional response. I suspect the OP asked an unanswerable question....But I suspect he knew that when he did it

Emotional response is easy to explain.

Humans are very dependant on other humans. We are pack animals. We are ingrained with the need to rely on guardians from birth. Humans are born more underdeveloped than most other mammals. Deer or calves or elephants in a very short time are able to stand and walk and find their food. Humans are totally dependant for several years, possessing a complete emotional need in a guardian figure.

As humans grow older they know they can’t run to mommy and daddy every time there is a problem, and we know that someday mommy and daddy are going to die, then what! No problem, you can still have this guardian looking after you all the time, no matter where you are or what problem you have.

So it doesn’t take much prodding to get one to believe in this invisible guardian. Fortunately there is a percentage of people that can stand back and recognize that their need for a god is purely based on emotional need and not any kind of rational reality.

RandFan

15th June 2009, 11:34 AM

No - cause there is no explanation based in logic that she had to pick him against all the other tall geeky candidates out there. The reality is, something about him sparked her instincts - He responded, and the world is graced by you.

My belief in God is very much the same. I can tell you the exact instance I began to really believe in God, I could describe the incident in great detail, what I felt, sensed etc. However because it was an entirely internal process I can not prove to you using any form of logic that I am right.

And because of that, I have a very strict rule about not challenging other people in what they believe, dont believe etc etc. It is none of my business really. We all walk our paths for the reasons we do.

That is something very common in the human condition. Music, art, emotion, a lot more of who and what we are is based on instinct and internal emotions than logic

Logic gets us to the Moon, emotion makes us look up and dream about doing itI can live with this. I come off as pretty contemptous of believers but in fact my postings here don't reflect my true position. Most of the people I know and love and many of my heroes are believers. That's fine. So long as we can discuss it and debate it and at the end of the day remain freinds then fine.

HansMustermann

15th June 2009, 11:53 AM

No - cause there is no explanation based in logic that she had to pick him against all the other tall geeky candidates out there. The reality is, something about him sparked her instincts - He responded, and the world is graced by you.

No, according to her, what "sparked" her interest was that she heard from a friend that at this other university there's this guy who passes for a genius. (At least among a certain group of people.) I did say it's not the typical romantic story, but there we go.

MG1962

15th June 2009, 12:10 PM

I can live with this. I come off as pretty contemptous of believers but in fact my postings here don't reflect my true position. Most of the people I know and love and many of my heroes are believers. That's fine. So long as we can discuss it and debate it and at the end of the day remain freinds then fine.

Trust me when you are a believer and have people like Fred Phelps in your corner, you are so far behind the 8 ball you can not see daylight. One of the central themes of Christian teaching is respect others the way we want to be respected. I hate being spoken AT or lectured about my position. So it is inherently wrong for me to do the same for others.

And really the only difference between believers and non believers is how they view the world. Really it is nothing to get worked up about unless one side starts trying to inflict its beliefs on the other

MG1962

15th June 2009, 12:15 PM

Emotional response is easy to explain.

Humans are very dependant on other humans. We are pack animals. We are ingrained with the need to rely on guardians from birth. Humans are born more underdeveloped than most other mammals. Deer or calves or elephants in a very short time are able to stand and walk and find their food. Humans are totally dependant for several years, possessing a complete emotional need in a guardian figure.

As humans grow older they know they can’t run to mommy and daddy every time there is a problem, and we know that someday mommy and daddy are going to die, then what! No problem, you can still have this guardian looking after you all the time, no matter where you are or what problem you have.

So it doesn’t take much prodding to get one to believe in this invisible guardian. Fortunately there is a percentage of people that can stand back and recognize that their need for a god is purely based on emotional need and not any kind of rational reality.

But that makes the assumption that all believers see God as a guardian figure, and the reallity is they dont. If I get into debt, I dont expect God to bail me out - or stop me from stubbing my toe.

Part of being Christian is to take responsibilty for your actions, accept when you screw up. Sadly many Christians seem to miss that bit of what we are about, and try to blame eveyone and everything around them when something goes wrong.

photon

15th June 2009, 01:48 PM

can the god/s you believe in interact with reality, affect changes?
Yes.

if so then what logical process and evidence led you to that conclusion?
It follows from the definition. God, when defined as the Creator, would be interacting with the world when he created it.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

15th June 2009, 05:14 PM

Do you exist inside their world? No. You can't be in that world even if you wanted to. You could make a character/avatar/whatever in it and tell it what to do, but it won't be you. Those people will never see _you_.

(Incidentally notice how Yahveh refuses to reveal his face to anyone.)

Can you interact with that world? Hell, yeah. With even the most minimalistic GUI, you could probably click and drag new mountains, send tornadoes, or whatever you wish. If the GUI can't do it, remember, you're the guy with the database and the source code. You can program anything you want to happen there.
If the simulated people have full access to their world, as we have to ours, they will find the hooks that allow the GUI to modify the simulated world. You might be able to hide the hooks if its effects are indistinguishable from random noise, but then it will be a very strange sort of GUI.

I think god has to keep his fingers out of the pie if he doesn't want to be discovered.

~~ Paul

proudnonbbeliever

15th June 2009, 05:28 PM

proudnonbbeliever

15th June 2009, 05:31 PM

MG1962

15th June 2009, 05:55 PM

To mg1962-My question is not an attack on anyones beliefs, merely an attempt to ascertain what believers accept as evidence for the proposition stated.

Evading answering the OP is not a valid defense, if you believe a godlike entity as posited can interact then what is the logical thought process and/or evidence that led you to that conclusion. If that response contains emotional experience i do want to know as it goes to explain HOW you came to believe what you do.

Asking someone to defend an emotional experience using a practical (logical process) Has as much value as explaining the sinking of the Titanic using the law of relativity.

It was why I equated it to love - everyone has a very personal experience with it - and ultimately a different experience. I am on my second marriage. The first, I knew I would marry the girl after the third date - we lasted 19 years. The second marriage took 3 years to reach the point where I wanted this girl to be my wife.

Trying to explain the phenomena of falling in love or deciding there is a God is almost impossible to put into words, or describe in a way that someone else can understand.

And really at the end of the day it matters little - what I think is as irrelevant as what you think. However the good news is at the end of our days, one of us will be right, one will be wrong.

six7s

15th June 2009, 06:05 PM

And really at the end of the day it matters little - what I think is as irrelevant as what you think.Except when we write and implement our policies, laws and - perhaps most pertinently - punishments

MG1962

15th June 2009, 06:10 PM

Except when we write and implement our policies, laws and - perhaps most pertinently - punishments

No doubt - which particually in modern society the seperation of Church and state is essential. And an area I really do believe US society is out of step with itself.

proudnonbbeliever

15th June 2009, 08:09 PM

SNIPPY...

Trying to explain the phenomena of falling in love or deciding there is a God is almost impossible to put into words, or describe in a way that someone else can understand.

And really at the end of the day it matters little - what I think is as irrelevant as what you think. However the good news is at the end of our days, one of us will be right, one will be wrong.

So according to what you have posted the train of thought that led you to your beliefs was an emotional response (a feeling/inner knowing) to a personal experience, is this correct?

I am seeking to understand what influences logic, evidence and emotion have upon the thought process leading to belief. I repeat this is not a challenge to your beliefs, just an attempt of this atheist to be less judgemental and more investigative - to examine my own conclusions in light of the response

MG1962

15th June 2009, 08:31 PM

So according to what you have posted the train of thought that led you to your beliefs was an emotional response (a feeling/inner knowing) to a personal experience, is this correct?

I am seeking to understand what influences logic, evidence and emotion have upon the thought process leading to belief. I repeat this is not a challenge to your beliefs, just an attempt of this atheist to be less judgemental and more investigative - to examine my own conclusions in light of the response

I was raised a Catholic, but by my early teens I was not buying a lot of what I was being taught. Anyway with one exception I had not been inside a Church for 15 years. For some reason, and I can not remember why, my wife (also a Catholic) suggested we go to Easter Service

During the service I felt this overwhelming presence. From my viewpoint it felt as if the air itself was vibrating. Judging from the reaction around me. It was a purely internal experience, it passed after a few minuted, but left a real impresion on me.

That was pretty much the momment I decided there was something definately beyond normal physical experience. I did become a lot more involved with the local Catholic community, and found the volunteer work and commardarie very refreshing and rewarding.

How it all fits together, or why it even should I can not say. But unlike some Christians I dont consider myself to be privy to some secret or universal revelation, and to be honest I am not sure exactly where faith and religion actually meet. For this reason I also avoid being over critical of other faiths. They may well be just as right as my own faith from a cultural perspective

So if you are looking for a more complex set of answers, I am certainly not the person to ask lol

proudnonbbeliever

15th June 2009, 09:32 PM

thanx for the honest reply mg, appreciated

HansMustermann

15th June 2009, 11:24 PM

If the simulated people have full access to their world, as we have to ours, they will find the hooks that allow the GUI to modify the simulated world. You might be able to hide the hooks if its effects are indistinguishable from random noise, but then it will be a very strange sort of GUI.

I think god has to keep his fingers out of the pie if he doesn't want to be discovered.

~~ Paul

You don't seem to understand how such a simulation works, no offense. The player's or admin's GUI is _not_ a part of any simulated world, and the little critters running around don't interact with it in any form or shape. Heck, in a physics simulation (e.g., finite element), the simulated object doesn't bounce on the menu bar or anything.

HansMustermann

15th June 2009, 11:27 PM

And please enough already with the deism/computer game analogies. There is another thread here for that. The purpose of this thread is stated in my above post -

the desire to find out the answer to how believers came to believe as they do.

Mate, and the purpose of that answer wasn't to mention computer games, but to say that really there is nothing special about such a being. There is nothing contradictory between being outside of a world and still being able to interact with it. And I personally arrived to such a possibility (mind you, not _belief_) via computers.

It might not be the mystical revelation answer you seem to expect, but it was an honest answer anyway.

six7s

16th June 2009, 12:05 AM

...I dont consider myself to be privy to some secret or universal revelationOther than a revelation from "a purely internal experience" of an "overwhelming presence"... yeah... that ain't woo...

On a more serious (less derisive) note...

MG, like you I was raised in a catholic community and yes, the sense of camaraderie can be "very refreshing" and even "rewarding"

Also, like you, I see NO REASON to attribute warm fuzzies to a divine being in teh clouds

So... my question to you is both simple and sincere:

Why do you believe?

proudnonbbeliever

16th June 2009, 01:50 AM

Mate, and the purpose of that answer wasn't to mention computer games, but to say that really there is nothing special about such a being. There is nothing contradictory between being outside of a world and still being able to interact with it. And I personally arrived to such a possibility (mind you, not _belief_) via computers.

It might not be the mystical revelation answer you seem to expect, but it was an honest answer anyway.

I never stated that there was anything special about the entity posited or that it was contradictory. I made my post to avoid this thread getting derailed, i understand the point you were making.

Based on the possibility that you have logically arrived at do you consider yourself as a theist, or is it more like being open to idea?

I am not looking for mystical revelations, just the components involved in the thought processes that lead people to become believers.

HansMustermann

16th June 2009, 02:13 AM

Based on the possibility that you have logically arrived at do you consider yourself as a theist, or is it more like being open to idea?

Well, I'd say I arrived more like at what I call an "agnostic" that way. It's the reason I can't take the hard "there is no god because we found no evidence of him anywhere" line, pretty much. It's very much possible for such a being to exist entirely outside our universe. Of course, I don't go pray to the Great Game Designer In The Sky but it's a possibility that can't be discounted.

tsig

16th June 2009, 05:21 AM

But that makes the assumption that all believers see God as a guardian figure, and the reallity is they dont. If I get into debt, I dont expect God to bail me out - or stop me from stubbing my toe.

Part of being Christian is to take responsibilty for your actions, accept when you screw up. Sadly many Christians seem to miss that bit of what we are about, and try to blame eveyone and everything around them when something goes wrong.

So you don't believe that Jesus died for your sins? You take full responsibility for them?

tsig

16th June 2009, 05:28 AM

Well, I'd say I arrived more like at what I call an "agnostic" that way. It's the reason I can't take the hard "there is no god because we found no evidence of him anywhere" line, pretty much. It's very much possible for such a being to exist entirely outside our universe. Of course, I don't go pray to the Great Game Designer In The Sky but it's a possibility that can't be discounted.

So you think you are a character in a computer game?

HansMustermann

16th June 2009, 05:38 AM

If the answer were "yes", then I'd be theist or at least deist. The answer is simply that I can't exclude the possibility of a creator which exists outside its own creation, in whatever form or shape that may be. Computer game, physics simulation, Big Bang home creation kit for god children, whatever. I also won't bother much with something that's just an unproven possibility though.

MG1962

16th June 2009, 05:58 AM

So you don't believe that Jesus died for your sins? You take full responsibility for them?

In the Catholic Church we only get to play that card if we ask for forgiveness through Confession. To do that we have to show contrition and remorse. Honestly you cant do that till you accept responsibilty for your actions in the first place.

six7s

16th June 2009, 01:20 PM

In the Catholic Church we only get to play that card if we ask for forgiveness through Confession. To do that we have to show contrition and remorse. Honestly you cant do that till you accept responsibilty for your actions in the first place.Tell that to the seven year olds in your congregation

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:Ap1hnwuG3_i2fM:http://www.ssppwindber.org/images/Mysteries-special/100_2818.JPG

MG1962

16th June 2009, 07:36 PM

Tell that to the seven year olds in your congregation

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:Ap1hnwuG3_i2fM:http://www.ssppwindber.org/images/Mysteries-special/100_2818.JPG

And your point?

six7s

16th June 2009, 08:06 PM

And your point?Are you serious?

OK... for the hard of thinking:

It is absurd for any sane adult to suggest that seven year olds can (let alone should) "ask for forgiveness through Confession", as to do so implies that they are not only wholly responsible but also accountable for their actions

Tip: if you want a little kid to grow up happy, secure and willing/able to participate in family/society, try education - not burdening them with guilt and then doling out punishments

Unlike a Bull

16th June 2009, 08:09 PM

How it all fits together, or why it even should I can not say. But unlike some Christians I dont consider myself to be privy to some secret or universal revelation, and to be honest I am not sure exactly where faith and religion actually meet. For this reason I also avoid being over critical of other faiths. They may well be just as right as my own faith from a cultural perspective

So if you are looking for a more complex set of answers, I am certainly not the person to ask lol

MG, first off, I commend you for posting about your religious beliefs on a skeptics forum, where you know they will be questioned, if not blatantly attacked.

Now, if you don't mind, I will attack your religious beliefs. ;)

Will you please explain how other religions may be just as right as your own, when your religion specifically states that Jesus is the only way to heaven?

MG1962

16th June 2009, 08:15 PM

Are you serious?

OK... for the hard of thinking:

It is absurd for any sane adult to suggest that seven year olds can (let alone should) "ask for forgiveness through Confession", as to do so implies that they are not only wholly responsible but also accountable for their actions

Tip: if you want a little kid to grow up happy, secure and willing/able to participate in family/society, try education - not burdening them with guilt and then doling out punishments

At what age do you think a child should begin to learn a moral code, Catholic or any other? Dont we begin teaching our children about good and poor choices almost from birth?

But I am interested in one point - for those reading on in this thread, could you explain exactly what the punishment is that is doled out?

six7s

16th June 2009, 08:34 PM

At what age do you think a child should begin to learn a moral code, Catholic or any other? Dont we begin teaching our children about good and poor choices almost from birth?

But I am interested in one point - for those reading on in this thread, could you explain exactly what the punishment is that is doled out?Here's an idea... Instead of going off on a tangent, we could have a discussion in keeping with the questions raised by the OP

question:

can the god/s you believe in interact with reality, affect changes?

and (part 2 of the question)

if so then what logical process and evidence led you to that conclusion?

If you want to discuss the inanity of catholic guilt as a tool for enforcing a moral code, then by all means start a thread

In the meantime, you have questions:

MG, first off, I commend you for posting about your religious beliefs on a skeptics forum, where you know they will be questioned, if not blatantly attacked.

Now, if you don't mind, I will attack your religious beliefs. ;)

Will you please explain how other religions may be just as right as your own, when your religion specifically states that Jesus is the only way to heaven?

Perhaps you could phrase your answer in a way that explains how your god 'interacts with reality' and 'what logical process and evidence led you to that conclusion'

MG1962

16th June 2009, 08:50 PM

Here's an idea... Instead of going off on a tangent, we could have a discussion in keeping with the questions raised by the
You may wish to take that up with the OP - The tagent was caused by his follow up question

If you want to discuss the inanity of catholic guilt as a tool for enforcing a moral code, then by all means start a thread

You were the one who brought up guilt and punishment in reference to 7 year old children, not I. If you wish to drop the topic, thats fine. It means little to me either way

Perhaps you could phrase your answer in a way that explains how your god 'interacts with reality' and 'what logical process and evidence led you to that conclusion'

If you read the thread you would see what my response to that was. My initial response was what led the OP to ask the follow up question that you seem to be having issues with

six7s

16th June 2009, 09:04 PM

You were the one who brought up guilt and punishment in reference to 7 year old children, not I.

Nice dodge...

Nevertheless, you FAIL, vis:
In the Catholic Church we only get to play that card if we ask for forgiveness through Confession.

If you read the thread you would see what my response to that was. If you read the thread you would see that its a NEW question

HTH :)

MG1962

16th June 2009, 09:05 PM

MG, first off, I commend you for posting about your religious beliefs on a skeptics forum, where you know they will be questioned, if not blatantly attacked.

As Randfan and other have said. Because we have differing world views, it does not mean calm discussions can't be had. In this day and age of the internet, there are precious few moderate Chrisitans that bother to post. And the reality is, the world is made of far more moderat Christians than Fred Phelps wannabees

Now, if you don't mind, I will attack your religious beliefs. ;)

LOL - I would prefer a casual debate, or honest enquiry if thats okay

Will you please explain how other religions may be just as right as your own, when your religion specifically states that Jesus is the only way to heaven?

The Catholic Church has wrestled with this question for as long as I can remember. Getting to Heaven is about leading a good Christian life. Unfortunately many athiests lead a better Christian life than many Christians.

In my mind, if we accept we are created in God's own image, then we have assume he encourges curiosity, self determination and choice. So when humans reflect those qualities, it seems odd to me (like I am an expert lol) That God is going to take a dim a view of it

As I said in an earlier post in this thread. I really dont know where religion and faith meet. So make of religion and its perception of God...what you will

In my mind that has to count for something. Part of the Bible is about God and our relationship with him, but an awful lot of the big book is about how we should treat and interact with our fellow man.

MG1962

16th June 2009, 09:07 PM

Nice dodge...

Nevertheless, you FAIL, vis:

HTH :)

Not really - if you refer to post #37 of this thread, it is clear, who brought up what about the concept

six7s

16th June 2009, 09:14 PM

Not really - if you refer to post #37 of this thread, it is clear, who brought up what about the conceptIf you want/need to pretend that catholic confession is not inextricably entwined with the concepts of guilt and punishment, then go right ahead... you're only fooling yourself

MG1962

16th June 2009, 09:20 PM

If you want/need to pretend that catholic confession is not inextricably entwined with the concepts of guilt and punishment, then go right ahead... you're only fooling yourself

Funny, this whole burst of outrage was triggered by my asking you what exactly is the punishment 7 year olds get. You wouldn't be throwing a John McEnroe now would you?

six7s

16th June 2009, 09:45 PM

Funny, this whole burst of outrage was triggered by my asking you what exactly is the punishment 7 year olds get. Are you drunk?

Or do you really know nothing about your own woo?

Anyhoo... as it seems you won't STFU until I oil your squeaky wheels... here goes...
http://www.vatican.va/ FIRST CONFESSION AND FIRST COMMUNION
By John Cardinal Wright
(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_07121980_fconf_en.html)Quam Singulari held in high esteem the knowledge which a child, just beginning to reason, can have about God, not merely as one who rewards the good and punishes the wicked, but also as one who dwells in unutterable mystery, including the triune God and certainly the God of the Incarnation.

<snip/>

One wonders if parents (is it ungracious to suggest particularly mothers?) who are terrified that their children have a crooked tooth or an unsocial adenoid, but avoid any word that might give them a scruple about incipient antisocial attitudes or a downright defect in their moral health may possibly have forgotten the healthy as well as the holy counsel of Jesus: "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Mt. 10:28).

You wouldn't be throwing a John McEnroe now would you?
Oh, puhlease... do at least try to keep your eye on the ball; confine your fantasies to the paranormal and note that I'm certainly not "outraged" by anything so puerile as your ignorance :D

MG1962

16th June 2009, 10:05 PM

Are you drunk?

Or do you really know nothing about your own woo?

Anyhoo... as it seems you won't STFU until I oil your squeaky wheels... here goes...
http://www.vatican.va/ FIRST CONFESSION AND FIRST COMMUNION
By John Cardinal Wright (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_07121980_fconf_en.html)

Interesting discussion about Pope Pius and who actually decides at what age a child is deemed ready for the various sacrements. However you again have ducked the question, posed by your post #37 on this thread

What punishment does a 7 year old receive?

six7s

16th June 2009, 10:20 PM

Interesting discussion about Pope Pius and who actually decides at what age a child is deemed ready for the various sacrements. However you again have ducked the question, posed by your post #37 on this thread

What punishment does a 7 year old receive?Oh... I think I get it... you advocate a cult that indoctrinates kids with promises of eternal salvation but you can't/won't be honest and acknowledge the inextricable link with the threats of eternal damnation...

Wow! Just wow!

MG1962

16th June 2009, 10:39 PM

Oh... I think I get it... you advocate a cult that indoctrinates kids with promises of eternal salvation but you can't/won't be honest and acknowledge the inextricable link with the threats of eternal damnation...

Wow! Just wow!

We might cut this thread to under 50 pages if you just admitted you dont know

six7s

16th June 2009, 10:42 PM

We might cut this thread to under 50 pages if you just admitted you dont knowOh fer christ's ache MG!

The punishment for the seven year old kids is the threat of your imaginary hell, where they will be ostracised from everyone they love for ever and ever

Get it?

Sweet dreams

MG1962

16th June 2009, 10:45 PM

Oh fer christ's ache MG!

The punishment for the seven year old kids is the threat of your imaginary hell, where they will be ostracised from everyone they love for ever and ever

Get it?

Sweet dreams

So a child goes to reconcilliation, and for confessing their sins, they are going to be sent to an imaginary hell?

Just to clarify, you are discussing the Catholic faith....yes?

six7s

16th June 2009, 10:55 PM

MG1962

16th June 2009, 11:16 PM

Duh!

If you think believe that all catholic kids confess all of their horridible, guilt-inducing sins (e.g stealing a biscuit from their siblings, forgetting to say their prayers, etc) then you really don't know much about kids in your cult, do you?

If you think that the Catholic Church doesn't know this, suggests you are far less informed in the art of raising children than you claim. The point of introducing the concept at that age is to help them understand that actions have consquences. It is only when the child gets older, they really understand the full process

It is the same with many practices in life. Do we start children of with the calculations for Special Relativity, or do we begin with the basics 1 plus 1

Do we hand out full unrestricted drivers licsence, or do we make people read and learn the rules, then let them control a vehicle under supervision?

You are welcome to have any opinion about the Catholic Church you like, but please at least try to do so within the actual practicalities of the faith, rather than misguided outbursts

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

17th June 2009, 09:21 AM

You don't seem to understand how such a simulation works, no offense. The player's or admin's GUI is _not_ a part of any simulated world, and the little critters running around don't interact with it in any form or shape. Heck, in a physics simulation (e.g., finite element), the simulated object doesn't bounce on the menu bar or anything.
So the GUI cannot have any effects on the simulation at all? Then it is analogous to a hands-off sort of god.

But that's not what you said:

Can you interact with that world? Hell, yeah. With even the most minimalistic GUI, you could probably click and drag new mountains, send tornadoes, or whatever you wish. If the GUI can't do it, remember, you're the guy with the database and the source code. You can program anything you want to happen there.
Don't you think the inhabitants of the simulation would notice the instantaneous appearance of a mountain?

~~ Paul

Jonnyclueless

17th June 2009, 10:18 AM

Beth

17th June 2009, 10:28 AM

So the GUI cannot have any effects on the simulation at all? Then it is analogous to a hands-off sort of god.

But that's not what you said:

Don't you think the inhabitants of the simulation would notice the instantaneous appearance of a mountain?

~~ Paul

I've always enjoyed the 'computer game' analogy to the relationship between a god and reality, so I'll take a stab at answering this question with "No, not necessarily".

A: The simulation might be recomputed from the beginning, thus the inhabitants of the new-mountain reality would be a completely new set of inhabitants.

B: The memories of the inhabitants could be adjusted so that they see it as familiar and having always been there.

C: The time scale of the computer simulation relative to the time scale of the virtual inhabitants might be far longer than their individual life spans, so it does not appear to be instantaneous to them.

On the other hand, even if they do notice such things, they might simply accept that such changes are part of the reality they live in just as we can accept that mountains sometimes appear where there wasn't one before in our reality. While we now have ways to explain how such things occur (e.g. volcanic activity), that's a recent development. For most of human history, such things were considered to be 'acts of god'.

Kudo's for a good question.

Beth

Unlike a Bull

17th June 2009, 11:40 AM

<snip>
Getting to Heaven is about leading a good Christian life. Unfortunately many athiests lead a better Christian life than many Christians.
Unfortunately, this is not what the bible teaches. The bible says that you need Jesus to go to heaven. I can provide scripture if you need it, but I assume you're familiar with the bible.

I am of the impression that if you do not believe that you need Jesus to get to heaven, then you are not a Christian. "Christianity" comes from the word "Christ". Take Jesus out of your religion and you're practicing a non-christian religion.

It is true that there are some atheists who are more righteous than some Christians, but the inverse is also true. And you can go ahead and put any other religion in there instead of Christianity and it will still hold true.

The difference is that atheists aren't saying that we're going to heaven and you're not.

In my mind, if we accept we are created in God's own image, then we have assume he encourges curiosity, self determination and choice. So when humans reflect those qualities, it seems odd to me (like I am an expert lol) That God is going to take a dim a view of it

I'm not sure how you started with "We're made in God's image" and come to that conclusion. In fact, I would think that the story of Adam and Eve goes against that claim. I wonder why it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil that was forbidden. Also, it seems like a little knowledge of good and evil would have helped us decide on whether to eat the fruit or not. If eating the fruit was original sin, and sin is evil, but we didn't have knowledge of evil until we ate the fruit, we had to sin to learn what evil was so that we would know not to sin ... seems like God really put us into a catch 22 there.

As I said in an earlier post in this thread. I really dont know where religion and faith meet. So make of religion and its perception of God...what you will
You have faith ... but don't know in what religion you have faith in? This is the equivalent of me saying "I have faith that Ugarak exists. I just don't know what Ugarak is." That's unacceptable.

In my mind that has to count for something. Part of the Bible is about God and our relationship with him, but an awful lot of the big book is about how we should treat and interact with our fellow man.
Yes, although some of those interactions may not be a civil as you would think. It's also worth noting that we are all sinners, regardless of the way we treat our fellow man. However, we are not all forgiven for our sins. That requires belief in Jesus.

MikeSun5

18th June 2009, 01:52 AM

Emotional response is easy to explain...
...So it doesn’t take much prodding to get one to believe in this invisible guardian. Fortunately there is a percentage of people that can stand back and recognize that their need for a god is purely based on emotional need and not any kind of rational reality.

Good post. That said, I'm going to take a shot at the questions, as I like to consider myself an agnostic theist.

can the god/s you believe in interact with reality, affect changes?

I don't know. :rolleyes: If time is a property of this universe and "God" exists outside of the universe, then I would say no. (if God existed inside the universe, he'd be an alien)

and (part 2 of the question)
if so then what logical process and evidence led you to that conclusion?

Ahh, there's the tricky bit of the question... My answer is none whatsoever.

It is sort of weird that so many ancient cultures across the world that had no contact with one another had similar ideas about deities. Sun-worship seems kind of obvious for primitive man, but a ton of cultures believed there was some sort of creator. I doubt that would serve as evidence though...
That's why bobcarp's post was interesting to me. Maybe believing something (anything - even if it's unknown) just feels better because I'd like to see my dead friends and relatives again. I don't believe in some dude with a white beard that watches over me, but I think something unknown started all of this. But I don't know. :)

I heard Michael Shermer make a reference once to "Militant Agnosticism." He said, "I don't know, and neither do you." I like that.

HansMustermann

18th June 2009, 02:35 AM

So the GUI cannot have any effects on the simulation at all? Then it is analogous to a hands-off sort of god.

_If_ said "god" actually uses the GUI to create a mountain or have a jolly good flood, yes, I believe it would be hard not to notice that.

I'm just saying you wouldn't see the GUI itself. You might go "oh, there's a mountain that wasn't there yesterday", but you wouldn't go "oh, there's a dialog box and a mouse cursor in the sky." That sorta thing.

That said, a devious kind of god could always retcon something as having always been there, or cover his tracks as well as he can be bothered to. Games make the perfect example again.

E.g., look at the latest expansion to World Of Warcraft. A whole new continent just appeared, a port has been moved, a chunk of the Stormwind wall and mountain has been replaced by a port district, etc. But all the NPCs act as if it's been always there. Suddenly they have a friend who's been working in Northrend for ages, and for all they say and act, it's always been so.

To get back to Earth, how do you know there wasn't an "Age Of Exploration" expansion pack, for example? For all we know, maybe America and Australia never actually existed before 1000 AD or so. It got beta-tested a bit by Leif Eriksson, found too buggy for the time being, closed to the players again and re-released in the 1400's ;)

Now of course that gets us to the other question, namely: why would God be trying to fool us? I dunno. When was the last time you actually cared about being honest to an NPC? :p

HansMustermann

18th June 2009, 02:45 AM

As for the simulation software argument, the programmer could make direct communication between him and the characters. He could speak directly and explain everything, and demonstrate himself beyond any reasonable doubt. No of course a god that is not physical cannot be physically present. But he could appear and manipulate the environment any way he chooses and be in complete communication. He could speak words into everyone's heads, and change the laws of physical before them.

In other words both would have no trouble proving their existence.

That is, of course, assuming that such a programmer actually gave a rat's rear about being known to and worshipped by his creations.

I mean, even without being their programmer, when did you last wish you had a church of yourself in Sim City or Tropico? You created their city, after all, and they wouldn't exist without that. Did you really wish that your sims in The Sims have icons of you on their walls? After all, you did personally create each of them, didn't you.

Now you might be nice to them. All my sims led happy lives, for example, and my Sim City games did result in nice cities, for example. But worship and their knowing about you? Why?

(But then again, there were also enough of those who just locked their sims in a room without doors and plenty of wooden chairs and fireplaces, and set the house on fire :p)

Now add that programmer part and the damn near omnipotence that comes with it. You can click and drag new mountains, boil the seas if you ever wanted to, create an extra trillion of trillions of tons of water for a flood, or wipe them all and start anew. You can even cause their universe to just disappear for ever. You can change their laws of physics. Anything that the game doesn't already allow, you can program in if you want it done. Etc.

Why would you give a darn about being worshipped by them? What's it to you? What difference does it make to you?

MG1962

18th June 2009, 06:56 AM

Unfortunately, this is not what the bible teaches. The bible says that you need Jesus to go to heaven. I can provide scripture if you need it, but I assume you're familiar with the bible.

I am of the impression that if you do not believe that you need Jesus to get to heaven, then you are not a Christian. "Christianity" comes from the word "Christ". Take Jesus out of your religion and you're practicing a non-christian religion.

It is true that there are some atheists who are more righteous than some Christians, but the inverse is also true. And you can go ahead and put any other religion in there instead of Christianity and it will still hold true.

The difference is that atheists aren't saying that we're going to heaven and you're not.

I guess the point I was trying to get across was not clearly stated. Simple belief in Jesus is not enough to get you to heaven. For example I know many Sunday Catholics. Go to Church, sing the praise of God, stuff the collection plate with money and tell the priest what an inspiring Mass it was. Then go home and do absolutely nothing to uphold Christian values or do anything that could be considered Christian in anyway.

So belief in Jesus cant be the whole answer there has to be more involved

I'm not sure how you started with "We're made in God's image" and come to that conclusion. In fact, I would think that the story of Adam and Eve goes against that claim. I wonder why it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil that was forbidden. Also, it seems like a little knowledge of good and evil would have helped us decide on whether to eat the fruit or not. If eating the fruit was original sin, and sin is evil, but we didn't have knowledge of evil until we ate the fruit, we had to sin to learn what evil was so that we would know not to sin ... seems like God really put us into a catch 22 there.

Not really - Catholics consider Genesis is an allegory, not an actual event. However the point of the apple story is about desires and controlling them. God gave man a pretty free run of the Garden. Virtually the only thing he asked not to touch was this tree - At the first temptation, what did we do. Touch the tree.

It also highlights the free choice we claim to have. God could have stopped us, could made access impossible, a number of things. He didn't - we did our thing, and here we are, by choice.

You have faith ... but don't know in what religion you have faith in? This is the equivalent of me saying "I have faith that Ugarak exists. I just don't know what Ugarak is." That's unacceptable.

I have no doubt the Bible is the inspired word of God. My life expereince suggests as soon as a human has to interpret that word, or any other words, meaning and context drift badly.

Yes, although some of those interactions may not be a civil as you would think. It's also worth noting that we are all sinners, regardless of the way we treat our fellow man. However, we are not all forgiven for our sins. That requires belief in Jesus.

But being forgiven for your sins requires you to recognise that sin, take responsibilty for that sin, and make an effort to improve whatever the fault is that is creating that sin. Believing in Jesus is not enough. You have to want him to fogive you

Unlike a Bull

18th June 2009, 11:07 AM

I guess the point I was trying to get across was not clearly stated. Simple belief in Jesus is not enough to get you to heaven. For example I know many Sunday Catholics. Go to Church, sing the praise of God, stuff the collection plate with money and tell the priest what an inspiring Mass it was. Then go home and do absolutely nothing to uphold Christian values or do anything that could be considered Christian in anyway.

So belief in Jesus cant be the whole answer there has to be more involved

I agree. But my problem is that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Yes, you can't praise Jesus one day and eat fetuses the next and expect to go to heaven. But people who do their best to live a good life, but "back the wrong pony", as it were, will find themselves knee deep in brimstone at the end of the day. Christianity is an exclusive religion. I'll use Ghandi as an example. There are very view people who would think Ghandi was not an upstanding chap. Yet, he was not a christian and will not be allowed in heaven. At some point he must have sinned. Even if he never sinned he's tainted by original sin. Without belief in Jesus he will not be forgiven. See you in hell, Ghandi.

Not really - Catholics consider Genesis is an allegory, not an actual event. However the point of the apple story is about desires and controlling them. God gave man a pretty free run of the Garden. Virtually the only thing he asked not to touch was this tree - At the first temptation, what did we do. Touch the tree.

You can dress it up any way you like. The simple fact is, according to the allegory (as we'll call it since you don't believe it to be literal), God had forbidden us from gaining knowledge. God preferred us ignorant. When we lost our ignorance, we lost our grace. Of all the things that we could have been forbidden from doing, it was the gaining of knowledge.

It also highlights the free choice we claim to have. God could have stopped us, could made access impossible, a number of things. He didn't - we did our thing, and here we are, by choice.

I agree that we have free choice. I'm just saying that if God just had to forbid one thing, it could have been something better. "Don't beat Eve" would have been pretty good, and would have carried a pretty good message too.

If it's all the same to you though, I would prefer to focus our discussion on whether or not non-christians can go to heaven, and not necessarily on the Genesis story. Especially seeing as how we're pretty much off topic of the OP anyway.

I have no doubt the Bible is the inspired word of God. My life expereince suggests as soon as a human has to interpret that word, or any other words, meaning and context drift badly.

I do have doubt. If God had some important information to convey to us, you would think He would have a better way of giving us that information than to pass it through some fallible humans to be written on (presumably) paper which would not last for long, would need to be re-written by other fallible humans, would be subject to changes in language, etc. Why wouldn't God give us this info in a more ... divine manner? He is God, after all. It just seems like a really human way of going about it. I mean, if there was ever a time for a miracle, it would be the formation of the bible.

But being forgiven for your sins requires you to recognise that sin, take responsibilty for that sin, and make an effort to improve whatever the fault is that is creating that sin. Believing in Jesus is not enough. You have to want him to fogive you

Possibly true, but irrelevant. My problem isn't that the bible wants you to learn from your mistakes, or that it doesn't want you to sin. My problem is that you need Jesus to get to heaven. So, if you recognize your sin, take responsibility for it, and make an effort to improve your faults, but you don't believe in Jesus ... well, tough break kid. Shoulda believed in Jesus instead of (insert other god here).

Mg, I fear we have gone way off topic with regard to the OP. I understand that there are probably many things in this post that you need to respond to, and I would like you to. However, I would like to redirect this back towards the original question.

I think it's obvious that you believe God can interact with the world. You claim a personal experience is what led you to believe in this God. However, people have religious experiences with all kinds of Gods. But your religion excludes other Gods. So, do you believe that your experience is divinely inspired and theirs is not?

MG1962

18th June 2009, 12:52 PM

Mg, I fear we have gone way off topic with regard to the OP. I understand that there are probably many things in this post that you need to respond to, and I would like you to. However, I would like to redirect this back towards the original question.

I think it's obvious that you believe God can interact with the world. You claim a personal experience is what led you to believe in this God. However, people have religious experiences with all kinds of Gods. But your religion excludes other Gods. So, do you believe that your experience is divinely inspired and theirs is not?

As a moderate, potentially liberal Catholic I dont really consider any other persons revelation of faith more or less relevant than mine. Perhaps I take a leaf out of John Paul II book - He went out of his way to respect other religions, and not just Christian, and at his funeral the numbers of Church leaders from around the world who came to his funeral showed how effective his concept had been.

Looking at the big picture. What if all faiths are actually correct to a point, and are all part of a bigger picture. A picture we are simply not seeing yet.

Obviously all religions are going to claim they are the only true way. And that was one of the points I was making when I said I am not sure where faith and religion truely meet. Within the Cathlolic faith, I have always been troubled by the influence of Paul. He helped mold much of what the Church is today, even to the point of trying to exclude those who had known Christ in his lifetime. Even though Paul never did.

Regardless of who was the major influence, there are some basic truths that hold true, and truths that cross many religious groups. A number of people have drawn comparisions between Bhuddist teachings and Christianity, who both share similar truths with Islam etc.

As a Catholic, these basic truths are the things that guide me, and why I have no doubt someone like Ghandi, or a simply kind hearted athiest will have no trouble convincing God where they belong.

epeeist

18th June 2009, 11:08 PM

proudnonbbeliever

19th June 2009, 01:41 AM

I'm sure this point has been made many times elsewhere, but some people use the word "evidence" when they mean "proof".

There is evidence to support the existence of Jesus Christ. There is not what one would consider scientific proof, but there is certainly evidence. So the 2nd of the OP's initial questions should be rephrased or clarified if a more meaningful response is desired. I'm presuming dialogue is the goal, if it's just baiting theists never mind...

Similarly, in response to the 1st question, I would think any Christian would answer it "yes" for obvious reasons (i.e. the incarnation is a really obvious example of interaction).

The purpose of this thread is to help me better understand the various factors involved in the thought process of theists that led them to become theists.

I specifically said evidence and not proof for the reason that it shows what evidence is accepted and what is discarded.

I should mention here that i want to know any emotional factors as well.

Normally i do enjoy baiting theists but at the moment I'm bored of that and want to learn more. :D

MG1962

19th June 2009, 07:15 AM

Normally i do enjoy baiting theists but at the moment I'm bored of that and want to learn more. :D

LOL - It is very easy for both sides of the argument to get a flamewar started, I think the attraction wears off pretty quick. It has about as much challenge as shooting fish in a barrel.

I am glad you want to learn more - not in the hope of converting you, but I believe ignorance fuels more conflict on this planet than any other cause. And although I know we will never agree on this issue, showing respect for each other position can improve things out of sight

mazyloron

19th June 2009, 09:12 AM

God: "Hi guys, I'm back. Where are you?"
Adam's voice: "No! Don't look! Don't look!"
God: "Did you guys find the hemp plants and the funny mushrooms already, or what are you blabbing about?"
Adam: "Umm, sorry, was naked."
God: "Duh, I knew I shouldn't have left that tree in here with you two."
Adam: "Eve made me do it!"
Eve: "That's so typically male! Blame the woman, eh?"
Adam: "Well, you did say it was all right."
Eve: "Yeah, but that's beside the point."
God: "Ok, so what's your story then?"
Eve: "The snake made me do it."
God: "A bloody snake made you do it?"
Eve: "Told me it was ok, see."
God: "A SNAKE talked to you? You have got to be kidding me."
Eve: "Tell him, snake."
The Snake: "Ssssss!"
Eve: "See! There he does it again!"
God: "You two must be either higher than a kite, or the most shameless liars, if you think I'm buying it that a snake told you to."
Adam: "Hey, don't look at me, I wasn't talking to any snakes. I was having a quickie with Fluffy here at the time."
God: "Yeah, righ... wait, you were having a WHAT? With the SHEEP?"
Adam: "Quickie, mate. 'S like a shag, only without the foreplay."
God: "I know what it means! Wait, FOREPLAY?"
Adam: "Oh yeah, that's how I discovered that milking thing I was telling you about yesterday."
God: "With the bloody SHEEP?"
Adam: "What can I say? She's a real vixen."
God: "No, I'm pretty sure it's a real SHEEP!"
Adam: "Hey, don't look at me, mate. I had no sense of good and evil at the time."
God: "And now that you do, you put fig leaves on the sheep too, because...?"
Adam: "Well, she's like one of the family."
God: "Now I'm affraid to ask why the horse is wearing a whole bush..."
Adam: *snickers* "Now that was Eve."
Eve: "Hey! I just thought it looked indecent with that... thing hanging all the way to the ground!"
Adam: "Yeah, right!"
Eve: "Typical!"
God: "Ok, so let's go back to the apples. So the snake told you to? Right?"
Eve: "Yeah."
God: "You know what? I had it up to here with you two! Out! Out! Out!"
Adam: "What about the snake, mate? It was his fault."
The Snake: "Sssssss!"
God: "Yeah, right... Oh well... The snake gets to crawl on its belly and can't speak any more. Happy now?"
Eve: "Well, it already didn't..."
Adam: "Ssht! Shut up before you get us in bigger trouble!"
God: "Now, OUT! Go f*** yourselves for all I care!"
Eve: "What was that last part?"
Adam: "Let's just say, 'go forth and multiply', but not in those exact words."

:D:D:D

Funniest thing I've read in a while.

epeeist

19th June 2009, 09:33 AM

The purpose of this thread is to help me better understand the various factors involved in the thought process of theists that led them to become theists.

I specifically said evidence and not proof for the reason that it shows what evidence is accepted and what is discarded.

I should mention here that i want to know any emotional factors as well.

Normally i do enjoy baiting theists but at the moment I'm bored of that and want to learn more. :D

Since I can't really recall a time when I didn't believe in God, I can't really say that it was evidence that convinced me, it was more, I have never been presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary. The more I learn about Christianity, the more it generally makes sense to me. If I refused to be open to evidence challenging my beliefs, then I wouldn't be on this board ;) and wouldn't really have faith, because I'd be wilfully blind and afraid of being challenged.

I know one former atheist who said that reading the Bible (as required for some courses) started thinking and inquiries that eventually led to religious belief and becoming baptized etc. but I presume that's an unusual story. Most people I know who have become Christian as adults had questions or some belief or some emotions that inspired them to learn more about Christianity.

Notwithstanding that example, I don't think of having religious belief (faith) as an intellectual process or "choice" in most cases. I genuinely don't understand how (some) Christians can say "do what we say because it's in the Bible" and seem incapable of understanding how unpersuasive that is to someone that doesn't share their beliefs. For that matter, I'm Christian (Catholic) and I don't necessarily agree with their interpretations... :rolleyes: