Let's see you argue with THIS profound thought of mine

[Huntster]

If I claimed I have had visions for months that would be evidence?....

Yes. Your testimony is evidence.

...I didn't find the age of the child in question. But atleast in that picture none of them look "very young".....

http://www.ewtn.com/fatima/children/lucia.htm

...Lucia was 10 years old when on May 13, 1917, while tending the sheep in the Cova de Iria, a woman, who later identified herself as the Blessed Virgin Mary, appeared to the children....

She passed away on February 13 of this year.

...And education is not the key issue here. But the situation in Europe and Russia. News spread. If the family and the region were poor (it probably was) I wouldn't be surprised if there were discussions about socialism and people paid attention to events involving socialism. So the child had pretty good chance to make doomsday predictions....

Please. We are talking about 3 shepherd children in an obscure village in Portugal during WWI, the oldest being 10 years old. Even in today’s education system a 10 year old has no grasp of such issues. They certainly wouldn’t have known or even cared anything about communism, Marx, Lenin, the impending revolution, or even the concept of economic/social ideology. If there was any talk they picked up, it was about the current “War to End All Wars”.

..."spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars," and that "Various nations will be annihilated." <-- That is pretty vague, even as a prediction....

It was really vague, but looking back on the 20th Century, it turned out very accurate, didn’t it?

[.13.]

There is evidence. There is not proof.

If the evidence isn't enough for an individual to believe, that individual has refused to believe.

Is that correct, or incorrect?

I guess you have different standards for evidence since I see none to support any deity. I am not refusing to believe in the evidence. If the evidence is lacking it is not refusal to believe. Refusal implies I find the evidence sufficient and then choose not to believe. Being incorrect is not refusal. I'm not saying you refuse to believe in reality. I just think your belief is incorrect.

[Huntster]

...Being incorrect is not refusal. I'm not saying you refuse to believe in reality. I just think your belief is incorrect.

I believe very much in reality. Those things that have been proven don't require belief. That's knowledge.

Belief/faith is reserved for those things for which there is inadequate or inconclusive evidence.

[Iacchus]

I guess you have different standards for evidence since I see none to support any deity. I am not refusing to believe in the evidence. If the evidence is lacking it is not refusal to believe. Refusal implies I find the evidence sufficient and then choose not to believe. Being incorrect is not refusal. I'm not saying you refuse to believe in reality. I just think your belief is incorrect.So, what's the difference between saying you're flat out wrong and your refusing to believe? And if I have spoken the truth, then what? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say you don't know and have no way of ascertaining it at this time?

[.13.]

Yes. Your testimony is evidence.
We definetly have different standards for evidence.


Please. We are talking about 3 shepherd children in an obscure village in Portugal during WWI, the oldest being 10 years old. Even in today’s education system a 10 year old has no grasp of such issues. They certainly wouldn’t have known or even cared anything about communism, Marx, Lenin, the impending revolution, or even the concept of economic/social ideology. If there was any talk they picked up, it was about the current “War to End All Wars”.

Why would it be necessary for the children to understand socialism? If they overheard conversations they could repeat parts of them without understanding. And remember that only thing she said was: "spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars," and that "Various nations will be annihilated." There's no specifics about Marxism or any ideology. There are no specifics at all. All they needed to understand from conversations is that someone thought Russians were going to make mistakes. Or just make a general guess that some errors might happen. That prediction is so vague it has no value.



It was really vague, but looking back on the 20th Century, it turned out very accurate, didn’t it?

Assigning meanings after some events to vague predictions mean nothing.

[sackett]

Perhaps "cannot" was the wrong word.
How about "refuse" to believe?

No, “cannot” is just the right word. I cannot believe in your God or any other. Nope. Can’t do it. Not a speck of evidence.

I cannot believe that John Frum he come. Nope. No can. All the frantic testimony uttered by poor deluded Papuans does nothing to persuade me -- or anybody in the rest of the world, come to that.

I cannot believe in visions of or sent by a deity. I can accept the considerable likelihood of people having hallucinations.

Testimony is not evidence, Hunt. It
just
isn’t.

By the way, I really like your avatar: the armored Crusader just about ready to draw his snickersnee and start hacking up heathens!

I particularly like the fact that he’s not a First Crusader. The First Crusaders didn’t wear the cross on their chests to protect the heart, they wore it on the right shoulder to strengthen the sword arm. I’m sincerely glad that you aren’t that type.

As yet.

[.13.]

I believe very much in reality. Those things that have been proven don't require belief. That's knowledge.

Belief/faith is reserved for those things for which there is inadequate or inconclusive evidence.

Maybe I expressed my self poorly but that's not the point. The point is: Do you see the difference with being incorrect (making false conclusions) and refusal to believe?

[.13.]

So, what's the difference between saying you're flat out wrong and your refusing to believe? And if I have spoken the truth, then what? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say you don't know and have no way of ascertaining it at this time?

As I asked in earlier post:

Do you see the difference with being incorrect (making false conclusions) and refusal to believe?

[Huntster]

...Testimony is not evidence, Hunt. It just isn’t.....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence

Evidence:
1.A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2.Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3.Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law....

...By the way, I really like your avatar: the armored Crusader just about ready to draw his snickersnee and start hacking up heathens!

I particularly like the fact that he’s not a First Crusader. The First Crusaders didn’t wear the cross on their chests to protect the heart, they wore it on the right shoulder to strengthen the sword arm. I’m sincerely glad that you aren’t that type.

As yet....

Thanks. I like it a lot, too.

I'm not much of a swordsman, so I don't need my right arm strengthened.

But I am a very good shot. I'm so used to it that recoil isn't even an issue. I don't even need a shoulder pad to protect myself when shooting the big boomers.

[Huntster]

Maybe I expressed my self poorly but that's not the point. The point is: Do you see the difference with being incorrect (making false conclusions) and refusal to believe?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I would think that "being incorrect (making false conclusions)" is what you think I am doing.

And "refusal to believe" is what I think you may be doing.

I can certainly see the difference between those two concepts. Is that what you mean?

[UrsulaV]

According to http://www.portcult.com/FAT.12.NEWSPAPER.2.htm the photographer on the scene saw nothing happen to the sun, and took photos of the crowd because he thought they were the impressive bit. So there was, in fact, at least one photographer on the scene, and he didn't think the sun did anything of note, but the crowd was sure actin' weird.

Some of the varying accounts--including the fact that not everybody saw it!-- like the rains of flowers and the dancing sun and whatnot are listed http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.aspx -- I wouldn't neccessarily trust what they have to say, but I wanted to include a site that wasn't hardcore skeptical just to be nice to those who believe.

I see that the sarcasm about the baseball hats went right over your head, so we'll let that one slide, except as further fodder for my secret belief that hardcore Christians tend to be uniquely humorless people.

http://www.anatheist.com/Articles/fatima3.html discusses it, and cites a book called "Borderlands," by Mike Dash as a source on half the people not seeing anything. He also lists "Looking for Miracle," (Joe Nickell) as a source for the description of the girl in question as a spoiled child frequently seeking to be the center of attention. They should be available through Amazon, have fun. There is, additionally, a bibliography with links that you can chase to your hearts content.

Now, are any of these sources inviolate? I doubt it highly, frankly. Any of them could be wrong. Probably some of 'em are. I suspect most of them are biased. I also highly doubt that your links from places like "Crystal Links" are any better. What I think is, as I said before, that the Miracle of Fatima has been in the hands of fruitcakes for so long that it's gonna be nearly impossible to tease out any actual facts. Probably there were a number of people in that area, and maybe there was a big sun-dog or rainbow or whatever, and maybe people got really worked up, and hell, maybe the sun did boogie down and the Virgin Mary danced a jitterbug on the heads of the viewers. But we have no photos and very very few hard facts. Fatima is just NOT good evidence. It's like a crime scene that the Boston Marathon ran through. You can find anything to support any theory you want and very little that you can actually say was tied to the crime. As a miracle, it's bloody USELESS.

And yes, I do think that young children are capable of remarkably charismatic acts where religion or faith is involved--look at the Salem Witch Trials, and the Cottington fairies! People get all weird and starry eyed when children are involved. I was a smart and devious little bastard at 10, and I assume everybody else was too, until proven otherwise.

[.13.]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I would think that "being incorrect (making false conclusions)" is what you think I am doing.

And "refusal to believe" is what I think you may be doing.

I can certainly see the difference between those two concepts. Is that what you mean?

I mean exactly that you think I refuse to believe while I just think you are incorrect in your conclusions about a deity. My question is: Why do you think I refuse to believe instead of thinking that I'm incorrect in my conclusions?

I'm saying it is wrong to generalise that atheists refuse to believe. Most of us might just be genuienly convinced that the evidence doesn't support any deities. If you believe they are wrong that's your opinion. But it's different from thinking we refuse to believe.

Would your god punish people for being incorrect?

[Ladewig]

Perhaps "cannot" was the wrong word.

How about "refuse" to believe?

O.K. I'll accept that.

[TJ]

I have a better question Iamme,

Why are the australopithecines, homo habilus, homo erectus, neanterthal, and cro-magnon man not mentioned in the bible?

Come to think of it, there's no mention of the dinosaurs, other galaxies, or a multitude of other as-yet-undiscovered scientific and evolutionary facts in there either.

Were we made as we currently are rather than climb a long evolutionary ladder? If we were:

Why does the whale have a pelvic bone? Why do we have vestigial veriform appendices and nictitating membranes? A little joke or...NO SAY IT ISN'T SO...a...mistake by god?

[Ladewig]

If they were deeds that were indeed divine, yes.
I don't know what you are refering to with the word "misdeeds".



I suspect that the misdeeds would be the cuckoldry(Aphrodite/Ares), the raping (Zeus/Leda et al.), the kidnapping of and sex with young boys (Zeus/Ganymedes), you know, that sort of thing. All that stuff that the God of Abraham defines as stonable offenses. ETA: We could go into the Norse pantheon, but there might be children present.

I am with Tricky on this one; suggesting that the Greek gods were in some way really related to the God of the Old and New Testaments is unorthodox at best, heretical at worst.

[Huntster]

...I see that the sarcasm about the baseball hats went right over your head, so we'll let that one slide, except as further fodder for my secret belief that hardcore Christians tend to be uniquely humorless people.....

It didn't go over my head. I caught that on the fly, and threw it back.

Sarcasm and humor are two different things. Don't make me whip out my dictionary again.;)

[Tricky]

If they were deeds that were indeed divine, yes.
If God did them, they are divine. If Zeus is just one interpretation of God, then God did his deeds.

I don't know what you are refering to with the word "misdeeds".
Oh, you know, rape, vengeful murder, that sort of thing. I believe Ladewig gave some good examples.

Of course.

Couldn't you also be mistaken that there is no God?
Of course.

I am always willing to be convinced by evidence. Got any?

[.13.]

Evidence:
3.Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law....


But note that it doesn't mean every oral statement is automatically evidence. And oral testimony that is considered evidence is allways examined carefully in the context of other evidence. So unconfirmed reports aren't quite evidence. And science has more strict rules for evidence.

And since you seem fond of posting definitions...
dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unconfirmed)

unconfirmed

adj : not finally established or settled; "an unconfirmed letter of credit"; "unconfirmed rumors"

[Huntster]

I mean exactly that you think I refuse to believe while I just think you are incorrect in your conclusions about a deity. My question is: Why do you think I refuse to believe instead of thinking that I'm incorrect in my conclusions?.....

Because we're not discussing a singular event, but a fact of humanity that has spanned all of human history (and likely before recorded history) and all human cultures. We are talking about human spirituality.

The fact is that spirituality is a uniquely human trait, and predates recorded history. As a non-natural, non-physical phenomenon, natural/physical evidence is not generally available, yet that is precisely what you demand. The message of Christ, repeated more times than I'd like to search and list, was FAITH. It should be obvious that, in a non-natural, non-physical world, something like faith would be required.

It appears that you cannot or will not accept that, or even the possibility that it might be so.

...Would your god punish people for being incorrect?...

I don't know.

And that really depends on your definition of "punish" (I know what the dictionary says, but that may not be what you mean). For example, being incorrect in an unforgiving climatic environment can result in death. Did "Mother Nature" punish you? Or did you simply die because of the consequences of your mistake?

[Huntster]

I suspect that the misdeeds would be the cuckoldry(Aphrodite/Ares), the raping (Zeus/Leda et al.), the kidnapping of and sex with young boys (Zeus/Ganymedes), you know, that sort of thing. All that stuff that the God of Abraham defines as stonable offenses. ETA: We could go into the Norse pantheon, but there might be children present.

I am with Tricky on this one; suggesting that the Greek gods were in some way really related to the God of the Old and New Testaments is unorthodox at best, heretical at worst.

Wow. It's hard to believe I'm continuing this.

I'm not sure if you really don't understand the point I'm driving at, or you're just poking with a sharp stick.

I think I'll take a break here. I'll be back to play later, folks.

I need a frosty one.

[.13.]

Because we're not discussing a singular event, but a fact of humanity that has spanned all of human history (and likely before recorded history) and all human cultures. We are talking about human spirituality.

The fact is that spirituality is a uniquely human trait, and predates recorded history. As a non-natural, non-physical phenomenon, natural/physical evidence is not generally available, yet that is precisely what you demand. The message of Christ, repeated more times than I'd like to search and list, was FAITH. It should be obvious that, in a non-natural, non-physical world, something like faith would be required.

You either didn't understand or you are trying to dodge my question. Nothing in that post explains why you think I refuse to believe instead of merely being incorrect.

You are assuming there is a non-natural and non-physical world. I can't see why I would have to assume that. I can't find enough evidence to support that "the message of Christ" is really a divine message.

Can you explain why do you think I refuse to believe instead of thinking I'm incorrect?


It appears that you cannot or will not accept that, or even the possibility that it might be so.

You said in your other post that cannot is not the right word. Is it or is it not? I'll consider the possibility if there are reasons to do so.


I don't know.
And that really depends on your definition of "punish"...

I'll rephrase: Do you believe your deity sends people to a place of eternal torment if they are incorrect?

And my earlier question:

You said: "...I believe in one God, and many multiple human interpretations and understandings of Him...."

My question is:
Are some interpretations wrong? Are there multiple interpretations that lead you to salvation from eternal torment in hell?

[Ladewig]

Wow. It's hard to believe I'm continuing this.

I'm not sure if you really don't understand the point I'm driving at, or you're just poking with a sharp stick.



I thought I had an idea about the point you were driving at, but this reply of yours makes me doubt my interpretation. What is the point you are driving at?

[PatKelley]

It was really vague, but looking back on the 20th Century, it turned out very accurate, didn’t it?
Wow. Confirmation bias in a nutshell.

[Huntster]

....Can you explain why do you think I refuse to believe instead of thinking I'm incorrect?...

There are degrees of faith. You can have a little, and you can have a lot. If there is absolutely no evidence (including no human testimony) of a particular thing (like the existence of rag dolls that come to life), most folks would have absolutely no faith in it whatsoever.

If there is a slight chance that it is so (like the existence of sasquatch), some folks might have a little faith that it is so; they might say, "Maybe, but I have strong doubts".

If there is a strong chance it is so (like the expansion of cougar range into the upper mid-west), folks might say, "It sure looks like it's happening."

By saying, "There is no evidence", even though there is some, that is an indication that one's mind is quite made up, especially when they are willing to re-define the word evidence to fit their positions.

If you prefer the word incorrect, that is fine with me. But, quite simply, your words indicate that you have no faith whatsoever in the possibility that there is a God, you appear happy to debate that position, you don't appear to even like the concept of faith, and that's your right.

By all means, continue in accordance with your will.

...I'll rephrase: Do you believe your deity sends people to a place of eternal torment if they are incorrect?...

And I will requote, for at least the fifth time, the definition of Hell that the Roman Catholic Church has published, and which I am in total agreement with, and will not add to or detract from:

HELL: The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives (1033).

Okay, anybody else need that quoted again? This cut and paste thing is fairly easy, but the repeated need to do so is getting silly.

[bruto]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I would think that "being incorrect (making false conclusions)" is what you think I am doing.

And "refusal to believe" is what I think you may be doing.

I can certainly see the difference between those two concepts. Is that what you mean?

I don't think that's what he means. I think he's asking of you, how your own religion distinguishes between "refusal to believe" and "incorrect belief," and if so, it is close to what I've been pounding away at here. Faith is, as you say, what you use when evidence is absent or inconclusive. It follows from this that it is very easy for two people of intelligence and good will to see the same thing - the same evidence, poor, ambiguous, questionable, perhaps not even qualifying as evidence by some standards - and come to very different conclusions. But does this mean that anything but your conclusion must be refusal to believe? Refusal implies the rejection of something more compelling than that. Yet faith implies (at least to me) everything but compulsion. What is left to refuse but authority?

For the most part, you've been addressing people who do not believe in a god at all, and perhaps that confuses the issue since that could be interpreted as "refusing" to believe anything. But what about those who believe too much? Or who believe things that are simply incompatible with your own creed? Iacchus, for example, appears to follow the teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg, who had some very, shall we say, unusual notions about angels and devils, as well as having personally toured the solar system and chatted with the inhabitants of other planets. Is he one of "us" or one of "you?" He doesn't refuse to believe: far from it. Or what about Rastafarians, who practice a Christian religion, but who despise the Catholic Church, and hold the Pope in contempt. You cannot say they refuse to believe, and yet...is there room on your soul train for all that baggage?

So it seems we're left with this question: if you accept a creedal religion, what is the status of those whose beliefs are seriously at variance with it? Is there a functional difference between incorrect belief and refusal, and where might that line be drawn?

[Huntster]

I suspect that the misdeeds would be the cuckoldry(Aphrodite/Ares), the raping (Zeus/Leda et al.), the kidnapping of and sex with young boys (Zeus/Ganymedes), you know, that sort of thing. All that stuff that the God of Abraham defines as stonable offenses. ETA: We could go into the Norse pantheon, but there might be children present.

I am with Tricky on this one; suggesting that the Greek gods were in some way really related to the God of the Old and New Testaments is unorthodox at best, heretical at worst.

Different tribes or cultures of people should be expected to interpret God in different ways. A society that is consumed in sex can be expected to believe that their gods do the same. In a tribe that is engaged in constant warfare can be expected to have warlike gods. A hunting/gathering tribe can be expected to believe in gods that hunt well.

Does that mean that God hunts, enjoys orgies, or is good with a sword?


...What is the point you are driving at?...

There is one Power that put the universe into motion. The multitude of human civilizations, with it's multitude of languages, experiences, needs, and understandings, has understood that God in different ways.

Just like we have evolved biologically, we are evolving spiritually (most of us are, anyway). Swedes no longer believe that Thor is throwing lightning bolts out of the sky with his bare hands. We know what lightning is now. Greeks no longer believe that earthquakes are the result of two gods on Mt. Olympus having wild sex on a bed of granite. We know what causes earthquakes.

[Huntster]

...So it seems we're left with this question: if you accept a creedal religion, what is the status of those whose beliefs are seriously at variance with it?.....

They believe in God, but not the same way as me?

Great! No problem with me. I encourage them.

...Is there a functional difference between incorrect belief and refusal, and where might that line be drawn?...

The word belief is the line.

Is 13 saying that:

* he doesn't believe that he believes in God?

* that he does not believe in God?

* or that the evidence clearly shows that there is no God, but that he might be incorrect?

All three of the above are the same:

He does not believe, and will not until someone provides him with evidence that God exists.

Faith:

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.

FAITH: Both a gift of God and a human act by which the believer gives personal adherence to God who invites his response, and freely assents to the whole truth that God has revealed. It is this revelation of God which the Church proposes for our belief, and which we profess in the Creed, celebrate in the sacraments, live by right conduct that fulfills the twofold commandment of charity (as specified in the ten commandments), and respond to in our prayer of faith. Faith is both a theological virtue given by God as grace, and an obligation which flows from the first commandment of God (26, 142, 150, 1814, 2087).

[.13.]

The word belief is the line.

Is 13 saying that:

* he doesn't believe that he believes in God?

* that he does not believe in God?

* or that the evidence clearly shows that there is no God, but that he might be incorrect?

All three of the above are the same:

He does not believe, and will not until someone provides him with evidence that God exists.


None of the above exactly. And I don't think those 3 are exactly the same. The first doesn't make sense. Second is sort of correct but it doesn't mention evidence. And I don't see any clear evidence to disprove gods. But that last sentence is correct.

*There is no evidence to support the existence of gods. Therefor I don't believe in them.

Ofcourse there is a chance that I'm incorrect as there is chance that you are incorrect. Do you see the difference between being incorrect and refusing to believe?

HELL: The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives (1033).

Ok I'll rephrase again: Would people be in the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed if they were incorrect instead of refusing to believe?

And does "even to the end of their lives" mean that it's too late to change one's mind after death?

. . .
And you're right bruto, that was pretty much my question.

[.13.]

Huntster you seem to say that it doesn't matter how you believe as long as you believe.

Doesn't that mean that the commandment of not having false gods is pointless? Because there are no false gods if every religion is of the same god. Correct?

[.13.]

By saying, "There is no evidence", even though there is some, that is an indication that one's mind is quite made up, especially when they are willing to re-define the word evidence to fit their positions.

If you prefer the word incorrect, that is fine with me. But, quite simply, your words indicate that you have no faith whatsoever in the possibility that there is a God, you appear happy to debate that position, you don't appear to even like the concept of faith, and that's your right.

We disagree that there is or isn't evidence. I'm not redefining the word evidence. Religious texts and claims are so weak as evidence that I don't consider them as evidence. And I have made up my mind based on the evidence or rather on the lack of them.

But you are right that I don't consider faith as a virtue. Do you consider it a virtue because a god says so? If that's the case you are justifying faith with faith. And I hope I will never lapse into that.

[kuroyume0161]

Huntster you seem to say that it doesn't matter how you believe as long as you believe.

Doesn't that mean that the commandment of not having false gods is pointless? Because there are no false gods if every religion is of the same god. Correct?

This is one of the basis problems with religions.

There are those that believe that there is something more than what is observable and call it 'god'. They do not adhere to religious dogma or particular religious tenets. They have a sort of 'universal religion' based upon a general, possibly vague, conception of a creator or god. You could almost call them deistic or agnostic for these reasons, but the conviction is there all the while being non-committal on particulars.

Then there are those who believe in specific instances. This is where dogma and tenets enter. One's revelation to 'god' is through a set of ideas proposed by a particular religion or faith-based organization (loosely). Here, instead of generalization or vagueness, we have absolute knowledge applied to faith. This is where criteria creep in and exclusion results.

Anyone professing both of these is lying. One cannot believe in a general 'supernatural being' that goes beyond specific knowledge and profess specific knowledge of said being's intents, intercessions, and so on (since the latter is wholly concocted or dictated by a specific 'knowledge-based' organization and contradiction to the former).

If you profess to be 'Christian', than you cannot possibly be professing that all other religions are equally general. What you are really saying is that they are all derivative of Christianity, but with some aspect of ignorance. That is extremely egocentric while appearing to be universally superficially.

Sorry to say, you can only believe in a specific one or a vague conception because you either profess specific knowledge or none at all. Once you gravitate towards a certain definition of 'deity', you have professed specific knowledge!

[Iacchus]

I am with Tricky on this one; suggesting that the Greek gods were in some way really related to the God of the Old and New Testaments is unorthodox at best, heretical at worst.No, just more anthropomorphized.

[Tricky]

They believe in God, but not the same way as me?

Great! No problem with me. I encourage them.
What if their way of worshipping God involves human sacrifice? You okay with that? Hey, it's all the same God, right?

No, just more anthropomorphized.
Accidentally perhaps, you have just said one of the wisest things you've ever said. Yes, Greek, Roman, Norse and other polytheistic gods are indeed more anthropomorphized than the Christian god. The key word is "more". All gods are anthropomorphized.

The Greek pantheon of gods had very human emotions and vices, much like humans. But the Christian God (as He is described in the Bible) is also subject to what would appear to any rational person as emotional outbursts. It all depends on what you want your god to be like. Even within the confines of Christianity, there are many many ways of viewing God, many of which are in direct conflict with others.

What this says to me is that people imbue their concept of God with whatever qualities they want. They anthropomorphize Him into a better, less fallible version of themselves.

I'm glad you've finally come to the realization that God/gods are man-made.

[Belz...]

Perhaps "cannot" was the wrong word.

How about "refuse" to believe?

If order to refuse, there'd have to be SOME evidence that they'd ignore.

[Belz...]

But if you were a very young child, poorly educated, and were claiming to be experiencing visions for months, then made the claim that "Iran will spread her woes throughout the world", and a century of worldwide struggle involving an ideology that began in Iran raged after that, and the Roman Catholic Church investigated the visions and (unlike in the past) ruled quickly that the vision was "worthy of belief",.............

........I might be impressed.

_I_ would be more likely to say that your parents influenced you into saying that.

[Belz...]

No.

I believe that the gods that the Greek culture worshipped, and which represented various elements of control over the world and universe as they knew it, were their understanding of what I have come to understand as the God of Abraham.

That's ridiculous. How did they come to know the God of Abraham ? What about the ancient Chinese ? What about Brahamanism ? etc.

[Belz...]

It means that 90% of both populations believe in a/some deities.

That means squat. A/some dieties are incompatible.

[Belz...]

Please. We are talking about 3 shepherd children in an obscure village in Portugal during WWI, the oldest being 10 years old. Even in today’s education system a 10 year old has no grasp of such issues. They certainly wouldn’t have known or even cared anything about communism, Marx, Lenin, the impending revolution, or even the concept of economic/social ideology. If there was any talk they picked up, it was about the current “War to End All Wars”.

Again, you forget the PARENTS as a possible source of information. Also, children are highly impressionable and will often lie because they are expected to give supernatural results by their parents and other people.

[Belz...]

I wouldn't neccessarily trust what they have to say, but I wanted to include a site that wasn't hardcore skeptical just to be nice to those who believe.

This is pretty much also what happened at the JFK assassination. Some people heard three shots, others more than that. Some people "saw" suspicious individuals, etc. And as time goes by, their memories deteriorate.

[Belz...]

Because we're not discussing a singular event, but a fact of humanity that has spanned all of human history (and likely before recorded history) and all human cultures. We are talking about human spirituality.

I don't know, man. In the beginning, humans believed in the spirits of nature (you know, owls, bears and such.) How does that relate to God, really ?

The fact is that spirituality is a uniquely human trait, and predates recorded history.

How do you know that SOME animals don't have it, since they don't talk to us about it ? How do you know that it was there before recorded history, if we have no recorded history to tell us this ?

And that really depends on your definition of "punish" (I know what the dictionary says, but that may not be what you mean). For example, being incorrect in an unforgiving climatic environment can result in death. Did "Mother Nature" punish you? Or did you simply die because of the consequences of your mistake?

That's obviously not the same thing. Nature does not purposely kill you. God purposely sends you to hell. If you contend that you go to hell by your own hand, then God is also unnecessary for that!

[Belz...]

If there is a slight chance that it is so (like the existence of sasquatch), some folks might have a little faith that it is so; they might say, "Maybe, but I have strong doubts".

That is an incorrect assumption. Some people, when confronted with insufficient evidence, will choose to believe in the opposite, because it is MORE supported by evidence.

By saying, "There is no evidence", even though there is some, that is an indication that one's mind is quite made up, especially when they are willing to re-define the word evidence to fit their positions.

Please present any evidence that there IS a god or a non-physical world.

If you prefer the word incorrect, that is fine with me. But, quite simply, your words indicate that you have no faith whatsoever in the possibility that there is a God, you appear happy to debate that position, you don't appear to even like the concept of faith, and that's your right.

Strawman and dodge. You've moved the "faith" from "faith in god" to "faith in the possibility of god", which aren't the same thing.

And I will requote, for at least the fifth time, the definition of Hell that the Roman Catholic Church has published, and which I am in total agreement with, and will not add to or detract from:

In one sentence you accuse people of having made up their mind and beign closed to possibilities, and then you say this ? That's very interesting indeed.

[Belz...]

Different tribes or cultures of people should be expected to interpret God in different ways. A society that is consumed in sex can be expected to believe that their gods do the same. In a tribe that is engaged in constant warfare can be expected to have warlike gods. A hunting/gathering tribe can be expected to believe in gods that hunt well.

So there is no correct interpretation of God, then ? It's just a cultural thing ? In that case YOUR interpretation of God, which I understand is the CATHOLIC interpretation of God, is incorrect as well.

[Belz...]

Oh, and by the way, Huntster, I'm still waiting on you about those Koran citations I provided.

[Huntster]

Oh, and by the way, Huntster, I'm still waiting on you about those Koran citations I provided.

Naw. I think I've had enough.

The debates here are a perfect example of what is meant by this Catholic definition:

ANTICHRIST: The "deceitful one" referred to in the New Testament, associated with the "mystery of iniquity" which will precede the second coming of Christ, through which people will be led away from the truth to follow a false "messianism," by which man glorifies himself and human achievement in place of God and his Messiah come in the flesh, in whom the kingdom will be fulfilled (675-677).

I should be getting some work done instead of debating with those of such hardened hearts.

So, I pray that God will see fit to reveal Himself to you in a way which will turn you from Death.

Have a good life.

[Ducky]

Well it's not everyday we're called the antichrist.

Oh wait...

[KingMerv00]

..."spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars," and that "Various nations will be annihilated." <-- That is pretty vague, even as a prediction....


It was really vague, but looking back on the 20th Century, it turned out very accurate, didn’t it?

In what century wouldn't that be considered accurate?

[puleeze]

ok, if god contains and is all things, then it becomes a null point. there becomes nothing to compare god against and without a reference to define god with, there's no point in further discussion and we can move humanisticly forward...HUZZAH!!!

[Iacchus]

ok, if god contains and is all things, then it becomes a null point. there becomes nothing to compare god against and without a reference to define god with, there's no point in further discussion and we can move humanisticly forward...HUZZAH!!!Well, perhaps this is why He has provided for our ignorance then? ... In the event that we might eventually come to understand? Maybe He isn't looking for us to subscribe to Him "blindly?"

[bruto]

They believe in God, but not the same way as me?

Great! No problem with me. I encourage them.



The word belief is the line.

Is 13 saying that:

* he doesn't believe that he believes in God?

* that he does not believe in God?

* or that the evidence clearly shows that there is no God, but that he might be incorrect?

All three of the above are the same:

He does not believe, and will not until someone provides him with evidence that God exists.

Interesting. I have a feeling that your own church would have more problem with the Rasta men than you do. I just have a sneaky suspicion that their refrain of "Kill da Pope" puts them out of the running, ecumenically speaking.

I'm not talking about respect for other religions here, an obviously salutory change in its own right; Deciding that you will not curse and denigrate other religions does not mean that you believe that their adherents will achieve salvation if they stick with their beliefs, does it? If it does, then we come right back to that paradox of universalism versus doctrine.

Are you really saying that to believe in God is the only requirement here? The only creed that's instrumental in salvation? It contradicts a few of your earlier statements.

Huntster, have you ever stopped to think that maybe you're a heretic and don't even know it?

:lion: Better check the expiration date on that permit.

[Belz...]

Naw. I think I've had enough.

So, basically, I show you that the Koran advocates violence, which puts a nasty wrench in your assertion that all religions stem from the same basic faith, and you decide to call it quits.

I think it's time to throw myself a party. Another one bites the dust.

My dust.

[Belz...]

Well it's not everyday we're called the antichrist.

Oh wait...

I think he meant ME, specifically.

Which, considering my Avatar, kinda works.

[Belz...]

Are you really saying that to believe in God is the only requirement here? The only creed that's instrumental in salvation? It contradicts a few of your earlier statements.

I think he's saying that belief in _A_ god is the requirement. Methinks he is trying to rally all faiths under a single denomination, so as to make the numbers overwhelming. You will remember that he believes that popularity makes right, as demonstrated by numerous argumentum ad populum.

[Ladewig]

There is one Power that put the universe into motion. The multitude of human civilizations, with it's multitude of languages, experiences, needs, and understandings, has understood that God in different ways.

Just like we have evolved biologically, we are evolving spiritually (most of us are, anyway). Swedes no longer believe that Thor is throwing lightning bolts out of the sky with his bare hands. We know what lightning is now. Greeks no longer believe that earthquakes are the result of two gods on Mt. Olympus having wild sex on a bed of granite. We know what causes earthquakes.

Am I correct in inferring that you consider what Swedes currently believe (primarily Christianity) to be more spiritually evolved than the belief in the Norse Pantheon? If so, then I must ask: of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Shintoism, and Hinduism, which is the most evolved?

[Z]

Am I correct in inferring that you consider what Swedes currently believe (primarily Christianity) to be more spiritually evolved than the belief in the Norse Pantheon? If so, then I must ask: of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Shintoism, and Hinduism, which is the most evolved?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I wanted to add my :twocents: anyway.

If we look at the evolution of religion as a means of understanding observed natural phenomena (for example, thunderbolts and earthquakes), then the most evolved religion would, necessarily, be a form of humanism - that is, faith that mankind will become the explanation for such phenomena in the future. Perhaps, ultimately, man will outgrow its need for the divine when mankind, as a whole, gains every last attribute of divinity... or at least, a majority of those attributes. We're already on the cusp of being able to create life from lifelessness - and when we do, we will evolve just a bit more into our humanist religion.

Perhaps the day will come, billions and billions of centuries from now, when mankind (or whatever we will have evolved into by then) will be the ones resetting the universe for the next 'Big Bang' and the next cycle of Reality.

[c4ts]

And why is "most evolved" necessarily better. Evolved just means it has changed over time. The changes may be better or worse depending on what has happened to them, and how the religions have reacted.

[Tricky]

Naw. I think I've had enough.

The debates here are a perfect example of what is meant by this Catholic definition:



I should be getting some work done instead of debating with those of such hardened hearts.

So, I pray that God will see fit to reveal Himself to you in a way which will turn you from Death.

Have a good life.
Oh well, scratch one failed missionary. I guess he wasn't prepared to preach to people who have actually thought a great deal about these questions. The standard "fear and confusion" tactics so often used by the church don't seem to work here. Go figure.

In response to his prayer, we should possibly send hime off with the equivalent:
Huntster, we hope you won't waste a sizable portion of your life chasing a chimera.

[Belz...]

[...] then the most evolved religion would, necessarily, be a form of humanism - that is, faith that mankind will become the explanation for such phenomena in the future.

Could you really call that a religion, Zaayr ?

[kmortis]

So, basically, I show you that the Koran advocates violence, which puts a nasty wrench in your assertion that all religions stem from the same basic faith, and you decide to call it quits.

I think it's time to throw myself a party. Another one bites the dust.

My dust.


Good job Belz...:alc:

[puleeze]

what does our sentience have to do with it. and what evidence?

[sackett]

Somewhere on an earlier page our Chrrristiann! Soldier allowed as how he’s a good shot, and doesn’t even feel the kick.

I was impressed (a little) with Huntsman until he said that. His tone had been patiently evangelical, I might say Christian. But I just don’t like a guy who fondles a firearm when he can’t make a point.

[Z]

Could you really call that a religion, Zaayr ?

No less than Taoism, Pure Buddhism, or the like can be called religion. Perhaps 'faith' is a better term?

[Belz...]

No less than Taoism, Pure Buddhism, or the like can be called religion. Perhaps 'faith' is a better term?

Agreed.