I don't know what I believe anymore..HELP

[VeryConfusing]

I'm confused about what I believe now.

About a month or two back I felt that I wasn't a very faithful Christian, and so, in order to "test myself", I surrounded myself with reading materials that contradicted what I believed (mainly about evolution, or just listening to atheistic arguments against god). At first I was angry when I read things against god, but as time passed by I quickly grew an increasing interest in it.

Before I knew it, I was questioning the goodness of "god" and the vast amount of contradictions in the Bible. Is god were perfect, wouldn't he create a perfect Bible? If god was good, wouldn't he test you for universally good traits (loyalty, compassion, optimism, altruistic nature, etc) rather than for something as silly as "faith"? If god were all knowing, why would the Bible imply that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it?

I grew anxious and guilty about questioning god because my whole life I was taught against doing that. In a desperate attempt to regain my certainty I started listening to arguments FOR the existence of god, but even I could see through the faulty "Cosmological Argument", Thomas Aquinas' arguments, "God works in mysterious ways blah blah blah", etc; the arguments for god seemed stunningly small (and feeble) compared to the vast supply of arguments against god.

And so... here I am today.

I'm having more cognitive dissonance now then I have ever had in my life... I think I am atheist, or agnostic, but I'm having so much guilt and fear. I keep thinking... well, what if god is purposely making it SEEM like there's no god to tempt me? What if there actually is a god and so I burn in hell for eternity? At the same time that I'm trying to bring myself to believe in god again, I'm also trying to convince myself not to believe in god. It's so confusing... and I don't know what I even WANT to believe.

Most prominently I feel that I am an atheist, and in the back of my mind I know that the only reason I'm still holding onto my small bit of faith is because I'm afraid of changing the perspective on life that I've always had. There is no one I feel like I can turn to for help (my friends and family are religious), so can anyone help me regain some peace of mind??

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

About a month or two back I felt that I wasn't a very faithful Christian, and so, in order to "test myself", I surrounded myself with reading materials that contradicted what I believed (mainly about evolution, or just listening to atheistic arguments against god). At first I was angry when I read things against god, but as time passed by I quickly grew an increasing interest in it.

Before I knew it, I was questioning the goodness of "god" and the vast amount of contradictions in the Bible. Is god were perfect, wouldn't he create a perfect Bible? If god was good, wouldn't he test you for universally good traits (loyalty, compassion, optimism, altruistic nature, etc) rather than for something as silly as "faith"? If god were all knowing, why would the Bible imply that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it?

I would say that the evidence against the bible is much stronger than just various contradictions and falsehoods. For me, the most damning thing about it is that it really isn't special at all. It looks almost exactly what we would expect to look like if it were cobbled together over centuries by various priests, prophets and politicians. Even the religion is just recycled from older myths.

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

I grew anxious and guilty about questioning god because my whole life I was taught against doing that. In a desperate attempt to regain my certainty I started listening to arguments FOR the existence of god, but even I could see through the faulty "Cosmological Argument", Thomas Aquinas' arguments, "God works in mysterious ways blah blah blah", etc; the arguments for god seemed stunningly small (and feeble) compared to the vast supply of arguments against god.

And so... here I am today.

Funny that; I just handed in a paper on Aquinus' cosmological argument for my Studies in Classical Philosophy class tonight. If you think Aquinus is bad though, you should read Anslem. The ontological argument is hilarious.

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

I'm having more cognitive dissonance now then I have ever had in my life... I think I am atheist, or agnostic, but I'm having so much guilt and fear. I keep thinking... well, what if god is purposely making it SEEM like there's no god to tempt me? What if there actually is a god and so I burn in hell for eternity? At the same time that I'm trying to bring myself to believe in god again, I'm also trying to convince myself not to believe in god. It's so confusing... and I don't know what I even WANT to believe.

I find these questions very easy to answer; if god really is that gigantic an asshole, I wouldn't want to worship him anyway. Frankly, I have more trust in the good nature of an average shmuck off the street than I do the character of Yahweh. The only thing in the bible to suggest that Yahweh is loving are the people who keep insisting that he his; his actual actions are those of a deranged tyrant.

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

Most prominently I feel that I am an atheist, and in the back of my mind I know that the only reason I'm still holding onto my small bit of faith is because I'm afraid of changing the perspective on life that I've always had. There is no one I feel like I can turn to for help (my friends and family are religious), so can anyone help me regain some peace of mind??

You've just taken your first few steps into a wider world. The god of the bible is small; he lords over a few select tribes of one species from one small planet in an unremarkable corner of an inconsequential galaxy. He is as tiny as we are, and by that measure you've lost very little at all. What you've gained in return is freedom. There is no universal purpose, no universal law, no final judge who will weigh your worth as a being. You are no longer a Christian, a disciple, a follower; you are you - no more or less - and you are free to give to that any meaning you wish. You can choose for yourself what is good, what is right, and what is best to do with the life you have. You, and only you, are responsible for your actions, your thoughts, and your happiness. Nor are you alone in this; for every person who shuns you for giving up the blanket of security that they still cling to, there will be another person in the world who would love nothing more than to explore the universe with you. The world is today more free and more aware than at any point in our history, and there is every reason to hope that this growth will continue into tomorrow.

And if that doesn't help, you can always watch Carl Sagan. <3

[Socratica]

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

About a month or two back I felt that I wasn't a very faithful Christian, and so, in order to "test myself", I surrounded myself with reading materials that contradicted what I believed (mainly about evolution, or just listening to atheistic arguments against god).

I don’t see how evolution contradicts the existence of God.

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

Before I knew it, I was questioning the goodness of "god" and the vast amount of contradictions in the Bible. Is god were perfect, wouldn't he create a perfect Bible? If god was good, wouldn't he test you for universally good traits (loyalty, compassion, optimism, altruistic nature, etc) rather than for something as silly as "faith"? If god were all knowing, why would the Bible imply that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it?

Faith in the biblical meaning does not only refer to believing that God exists, but also having a bond with Him and living by His laws (the universally good traits you listed in brackets).
As for the scientific incorrectness in the Bible, note that it is not meant to present scientific facts, but theological knowledge (only truths needed for salvation). The author of the Bible was not enlightened with scientific knowledge, but only with the theological sense of the revelation of God. If you were to take everything in the Bible literally (the mistake that Protestants make), you would as well come to a conclusion that humanity originates from two individuals known as Adam and Eve and that therefore the theory of evolution is false. God does not want to reveal scientific facts to us. He wants us to discover them on our own.

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

In a desperate attempt to regain my certainty I started listening to arguments FOR the existence of god, but even I could see through the faulty "Cosmological Argument", Thomas Aquinas' arguments, "God works in mysterious ways blah blah blah", etc; the arguments for god seemed stunningly small (and feeble) compared to the vast supply of arguments against god.

First of all how exactly has the cosmological argument been refuted? And second of all, which arguments demonstrate that God definitely does not exist? I know there are arguments that attempt to present cases which do not require God, but these do not reject the existence of God. Let’s take the pulsating universe theory. They say that this is a case which does not require God. However what is in charge of the pulsating, then? If you try to convince me that the pulsating “simply is” (exists without an exterior cause of its existence), then you will have given it the nature of the Absolute.
If you like, you can follow and join in the debate on God’s existence which I’m taking part in within the thread "Praying" started by Fictional.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I would say that the evidence against the bible is much stronger than just various contradictions and falsehoods. For me, the most damning thing about it is that it really isn't special at all. It looks almost exactly what we would expect to look like if it were cobbled together over centuries by various priests, prophets and politicians. Even the religion is just recycled from older myths.

Some parts of the Old Testament have indeed been recycled from older myths, like Noah’s Ark, but the myths were given a new moral. Christian faith does not require believing that there was such a man as Noah who built an ark (for he may have been a literary character), but to understand the theological sense of this.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Funny that; I just handed in a paper on Aquinus' cosmological argument for my Studies in Classical Philosophy class tonight.If you think Aquinus is bad though, you should read Anslem. The ontological argument is hilarious.

As a matter of fact I don’t find the ontological argument convincing either. I find it more intuitive than reasonable. So you see, I don’t always choose authors that “conveniently agree with my preferences”, as you accused of me previously.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I find these questions very easy to answer; if god really is that gigantic an asshole, I wouldn't want to worship him anyway. Frankly, I have more trust in the good nature of an average shmuck off the street than I do the character of Yahweh. The only thing in the bible to suggest that Yahweh is loving are the people who keep insisting that he his; his actual actions are those of a deranged tyrant.

If God had seemed like a tyrant in the Old Testament, it was only towards savages that made sacrifices of children for their gods.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

You've just taken your first few steps into a wider world. The god of the bible is small; he lords over a few select tribes of one species from one small planet in an unremarkable corner of an inconsequential galaxy. He is as tiny as we are, and by that measure you've lost very little at all. What you've gained in return is freedom. There is no universal purpose, no universal law, no final judge who will weigh your worth as a being. You are no longer a Christian, a disciple, a follower; you are you - no more or less - and you are free to give to that any meaning you wish. You can choose for yourself what is good, what is right, and what is best to do with the life you have. You, and only you, are responsible for your actions, your thoughts, and your happiness. Nor are you alone in this; for every person who shuns you for giving up the blanket of security that they still cling to, there will be another person in the world who would love nothing more than to explore the universe with you. The world is today more free and more aware than at any point in our history, and there is every reason to hope that this growth will continue into tomorrow.

This is very poetic, but meaningless. First of all, if I can choose what is right and what is wrong, does that mean I can be a hedonist? I’m sure there are many examples of criminals who not only got away with their crimes, but also spent their whole lives in luxuries, so why should they care about other people? I predict that your answer to this question will be that only friendship brings real happiness, not luxuries. In that case morality is not relative, so therefore there is a universal law after all. And that universal law has to have its origin. We humans cannot change this law; we can only investigate it by analyzing what is truly advantageous for humanity and what isn’t. And I think that the Catholic Church has already correctly investigated that law because its doctrines regarding morality truly make sense. I ensure you that my faith is not blind, but based on rationalism. If you have doubts regarding the teachings of the Catholic Church on morality (perhaps on less obvious matters like divorces, abortion, in vitro or sexual orientation etc…), I’ll do my best to explain.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Socratica

Some parts of the Old Testament have indeed been recycled from older myths, like Noah’s Ark, but the myths were given a new moral. Christian faith does not require believing that there was such a man as Noah who built an ark (for he may have been a literary character), but to understand the theological sense of this.

I'm not just talking about little details; the Christ myth itself is a repost. The Indians and the Egyptians, for example, both had very similar tales well earlier (Krishna and Horus respectively).

Originally Posted by Socratica

If God had seemed like a tyrant in the Old Testament, it was only towards savages that made sacrifices of children for their gods.

"They deserved it," huh? Very enlightened.

Originally Posted by Socratica

This is very poetic, but meaningless.

He asked for peace of mind, not an exhaustive philosophical treatise.

Originally Posted by Socratica

First of all, if I can choose what is right and what is wrong, does that mean I can be a hedonist? I’m sure there are many examples of criminals who not only got away with their crimes, but also spent their whole lives in luxuries, so why should they care about other people? I predict that your answer to this question will be that only friendship brings real happiness, not luxuries.

Not even close to the mark. Yes, you can be a criminal if you want to be, in that you are physically capable of it and I probably could not stop you. There is no ultimate justification for caring about other people, only the convenient fact that we do.

Originally Posted by Socratica

In that case morality is not relative, so therefore there is a universal law after all. And that universal law has to have its origin. We humans cannot change this law; we can only investigate it by analyzing what is truly advantageous for humanity and what isn’t. And I think that the Catholic Church has already correctly investigated that law because its doctrines regarding morality truly make sense. I ensure you that my faith is not blind, but based on rationalism. If you have doubts regarding the teachings of the Catholic Church on morality (perhaps on less obvious matters like divorces, abortion, in vitro or sexual orientation etc…), I’ll do my best to explain.

If you think that the Catholic church is a bastion of righteousness, then I suggest that you watch the Intelligence Squared debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCdnh...F8AFD815FFA216

If instead you think that the church itself is deeply corrupted but that the ideologies are good you are I suppose slightly less wrong, but Christian morality is, on the whole, a disgusting thing.

[Keysha]

I think that yeah there may be something there but there can't be one person that saves us cause we are all different.

[VeryConfusing]

“You've just taken your first few steps into a wider world. The god of the bible is small; he lords over a few select tribes of one species from one small planet in an unremarkable corner of an inconsequential galaxy. He is as tiny as we are, and by that measure you've lost very little at all. What you've gained in return is freedom. There is no universal purpose, no universal law, no final judge who will weigh your worth as a being. You are no longer a Christian, a disciple, a follower; you are you - no more or less - and you are free to give to that any meaning you wish. You can choose for yourself what is good, what is right, and what is best to do with the life you have. You, and only you, are responsible for your actions, your thoughts, and your happiness. Nor are you alone in this; for every person who shuns you for giving up the blanket of security that they still cling to, there will be another person in the world who would love nothing more than to explore the universe with you. The world is today more free and more aware than at any point in our history, and there is every reason to hope that this growth will continue into tomorrow."
-Xujhan


(Sorry I'm not just quoting you, but I'm really inexperienced with forums lol.)

Thank you. This really helped me out a lot; I don't know how you managed to do it, but you've turned my anxiety into excitement. For the first time in weeks, I think things are going to be okay. I don't know how I'm going to tell my parents though... or even if I should tell them.

-----------------------------------------------------------

“I don’t see how evolution contradicts the existence of God.”
-Socratica

Well, I used to believe in Adam and Eve and it's what I've been taught to believe. Personally, learning about evolution really reduced the credibility of the Bible because I've not had the "mental anesthesia" towards not being taught it in a literal sense. (Does that make sense?) Simply put: I was not used to seeing that the Bible was incorrect, therefore "rational thinking" (which I sadly did so little of) was what sobered me up.
-----------------------------------------------------------

“Faith in the biblical meaning does not only refer to believing that God exists, but also having a bond with Him and living by His laws (the universally good traits you listed in brackets).
As for the scientific incorrectness in the Bible, note that it is not meant to present scientific facts, but theological knowledge (only truths needed for salvation). The author of the Bible was not enlightened with scientific knowledge, but only with the theological sense of the revelation of God. If you were to take everything in the Bible literally (the mistake that Protestants make), you would as well come to a conclusion that humanity originates from two individuals known as Adam and Eve and that therefore the theory of evolution is false. God does not want to reveal scientific facts to us. He wants us to discover them on our own.”
-Socraticaaaaaaa

I know that god endorses universally good traits, but the one you must absolutely have is "faith". Why is "faith" the most important thing to have? What makes faith a virtue in the first place? If someone is a good person, regardless of faith, they should get into heaven. Even IF someone is bad, no one would ever deserve to burn in fire for eternity. It is simply unfair to put someone in hell for an eternity for mistakes they made in only a few decades; it's like sentencing someone who stole a purse to lifetime in jail. I can't think of someone as morally archaic and malevolent as god; even if god is real, I will never again be able to praise someone so evil again.

(Of course, the idea of "hell for eternity" is to keep people in line.)
------------------------------------------------------
"First of all how exactly has the cosmological argument been refuted? And second of all, which arguments demonstrate that God definitely does not exist? I know there are arguments that attempt to present cases which do not require God, but these do not reject the existence of God. Let’s take the pulsating universe theory. They say that this is a case which does not require God. However what is in charge of the pulsating, then? If you try to convince me that the pulsating “simply is” (exists without an exterior cause of its existence), then you will have given it the nature of the Absolute.
If you like, you can follow and join in the debate on God’s existence which I’m taking part in within the thread "Praying" started by Fictional"
-Socratica

There are huge flaws in the Cosmological Argument, including that if all things need a cause to exist, then God must also need a cause to exist. It contradicts itself quite plainly and fails to prove anything. I can go into it if you like, but it is quite plainly stupid.
(I HOPE I don't have to explain to you why Thomas Aquinas is an idiot too)

There are not arguments which definitely disprove the existence of god because god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. (Example: if I have the ability to fly while no one is present, and while I'm not being recorded, and there would absolutely be no trace of evidence that I ever flied, how could you disprove that I had the ability to fly?)

Pulsating Universe Theory: I honestly don't know what the cause is because I haven't gotten into it, but I'm not going to explain what I don't know by replacing it with a god.

Basically since the first time that animals had evolved with the ability to question their existence and have the conscious awareness that they did exist (which is the first time they would be classified as human) things were explained almost entirely by the supernatural.

Weather was explained by gods' emotions; anger= thunder storm, sadness= rain, etc. People tried to solve their problems via methods of sacrifice, praying, bleeding themselves to release demons, etc.
Now we know why there is weather, why the sun goes up and down, why people get sick, etc. As decades pass and humans grow more knowledgeable about the world around them, supernatural ideas have less and less places to hide. Supernatural explanations are for pseudo-intellectuals and using the argument: "You don't know what causes this blah blah blah" may have been effective in the dark ages, but it isn't in the modern era.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

(Sorry I'm not just quoting you, but I'm really inexperienced with forums lol.)

Thank you. This really helped me out a lot; I don't know how you managed to do it, but you've turned my anxiety into excitement. For the first time in weeks, I think things are going to be okay. I don't know how I'm going to tell my parents though... or even if I should tell them.

There's a button at the bottom of each post that says "Quote"; I think that's what you're looking for.

I'm glad I could help! I've never had to bear the cross of religion myself (harr harr), but like every other teenager I had to deal with doubts, uncertainty, the usual. In my old age I've come to the decision that there's no good reason to not enjoy the life I have, so I'm training myself to always be able to find a positive outlook. Really, I find godlessness an easy one. Being optimistic about American politics; now that's a challenge.

I think the generally accepted wisdom when it comes to coming out of the wardrobe (the atheist's closet) is that it's better to be safe than sorry. If you're unsure about how your parents will react, it's probably better to wait until you're financially independent.

[MadPoet]

Hey,

It's really hard to be in a position where you're not sure. I went through the same thing not that long ago, and it's extremely difficult. I think the hardest part was the guilt, the feeling that I was somehow betraying my family because I thought I believed differently than them. I know for a fact that I'm a Christian now, but the truth is that not everyone is meant to be a Christian. People are going to believe what they believe.

So the first thing you have to get rid of in order to really make the decision is your guilt. You have to accept the fact that you might believe differently, and realize that you haven't done anything wrong in feeling the way you do. You might be an atheist, you might be a Christian. But if you shouldn't feel guilty about being a Christian, you shouldn't feel guilty about being an atheist either.

You're right, it might be a test to your loyalty and belief in God. But I'm a believer that if you're meant to be with God and you're meant to believe, and you're a Christian at heart, then you'll find your way back to Him. So do what feels right, and whatever makes you happy. If anyone judges you because of it, then so be it. At least you're living your life the way you please.

[VeryConfusing]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

There's a button at the bottom of each post that says "Quote"; I think that's what you're looking for.

I'm glad I could help! I've never had to bear the cross of religion myself (harr harr), but like every other teenager I had to deal with doubts, uncertainty, the usual. In my old age I've come to the decision that there's no good reason to not enjoy the life I have, so I'm training myself to always be able to find a positive outlook. Really, I find godlessness an easy one. Being optimistic about American politics; now that's a challenge.

I think the generally accepted wisdom when it comes to coming out of the wardrobe (the atheist's closet) is that it's better to be safe than sorry. If you're unsure about how your parents will react, it's probably better to wait until you're financially independent.

I think that I've found a new respect for life because now I know that it's the only one I'll ever have. There isn't an eternity of never-ending consciousness to look forward to, there are only a few decades. This isn't a sad prospect to me. I feel extremely lucky to have the chance to live at all, AND live in a place where knowledge is very easily accessible (on top of that, I can have an endless pursuit of any type of knowledge I want because I'm not living under the rule of a suppressive government). What is the probability that I'd even be one of the people able to experience life at all ( in a financially comfortable way), and that I'd have the understanding that I am infinitely lucky in the first place?

The best decision I have ever made is to try and "test my faith" in god.
I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really want to thank you.

Now the only thing I'm really not looking forward to is going to church on Sunday. I don't know what I'm going to do about my parents because there is no way I'm going to be able to keep the secret that I'm atheist from them for 10-13ish years (since they are also going to pay my way through college). I think it's going to slip out, whether I want it to or not, very soon. I know that my parents love me, but I'm not sure how they would react towards my atheism. The best that I'd be able to hope for is that they'd only be extremely disappointed in me but respect my choices; the worst might be take away all my college funding until I faked being Christian again.

Off topic: I'm not too optimistic towards American politics either. I think that when it's decided that more money should be spent on saving lives, rather than taking them away ( health care over military), I'll be mostly happy.

[Socratica]

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

Well, I used to believe in Adam and Eve and it's what I've been taught to believe. Personally, learning about evolution really reduced the credibility of the Bible because I've not had the "mental anesthesia" towards not being taught it in a literal sense. (Does that make sense?) Simply put: I was not used to seeing that the Bible was incorrect, therefore "rational thinking" (which I sadly did so little of) was what sobered me up.

Out of curiosity, which Church do you belong to? Because taking completely everything in the Bible literally is definitely not a Catholic view. And not taking everything literally does make sense. Let me give you an example of a text: “After being dumped by his girlfriend, his heart was burning in the flames of sorrow.” Does that mean the character’s heart was literally burning in flames of sorrow? No. Sometimes a literary description has to be used to highlight something. The description of creating the world in the Book of Genesis highlights that first of all, God created the world, second of all, mankind is a unique species, and third of all that there are two genders purposed for reproduction. There are more truths within the Book of Genesis, which I have not listed. Therefore I recommend Bibles with annotations. The Bible is not incorrect as long as it is not taken completely literally. The theological truth within it is correct.

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

I know that god endorses universally good traits, but the one you must absolutely have is "faith". Why is "faith" the most important thing to have? What makes faith a virtue in the first place? If someone is a good person, regardless of faith, they should get into heaven. Even IF someone is bad, no one would ever deserve to burn in fire for eternity. It is simply unfair to put someone in hell for an eternity for mistakes they made in only a few decades; it's like sentencing someone who stole a purse to lifetime in jail. I can't think of someone as morally archaic and malevolent as god; even if god is real, I will never again be able to praise someone so evil again.

The Bible says that love is the most important, more important than faith and hope. God is just. He takes in mind all the circumstances in which one acts. Lack of faith alone does not necessarily have to mean hell. Hell is for volunteers, who choose to sin with premeditation. Lack of knowledge that something was bad is a partial justification, which can save you from hell. But it is only partial because we have been given a wit that allows us to investigate morality.
Why don’t we look at this case from the other side? For our limited number of good deeds, despite our sins, we get all of eternity of happiness. Does that not make God merciful?

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

There are huge flaws in the Cosmological Argument, including that if all things need a cause to exist, then God must also need a cause to exist. It contradicts itself quite plainly and fails to prove anything. I can go into it if you like, but it is quite plainly stupid.
(I HOPE I don't have to explain to you why Thomas Aquinas is an idiot too)

First of all, let’s not talk about the authors of arguments (so called argumentum et persona), but about the arguments alone. Second of all, let me explain what seems to be the flaw of the Cosmological Argument. The cause of God’s existence is God himself, and the cause of that cause is also God etc… The infinite regress is within God. The Absolute (God) possesses all the properties needed to exist without an exterior cause. There has to be an absolute law that is in charge of the whole reality.

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

There are not arguments which definitely disprove the existence of god because god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. (Example: if I have the ability to fly while no one is present, and while I'm not being recorded, and there would absolutely be no trace of evidence that I ever flied, how could you disprove that I had the ability to fly?)

Since there are no arguments definitely disproving the existence of God, then atheism is merely faith (without evidence) that God does not exist. Therefore atheism isn’t rational after all.

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

Pulsating Universe Theory: I honestly don't know what the cause is because I haven't gotten into it, but I'm not going to explain what I don't know by replacing it with a god.

Briefly, let me explain that the Pulsating Universe Theory claims that time and space has been expanding and collapsing as an eternal routine. This theory has been used to attempt to contradict God’s existence (ironic that I am the one that brought up this matter), because it is based on infinite regress (infinite chain of causality), which already explains the origin of the universe and therefore there needs not to be a God that created the universe (of course this is not my conclusion, but the conclusion of atheists). However my question to infinite regress is: what is the cause of the existence (occurrence) of infinite regress as a whole? Once you say that infinite regress “simply is” (exists without an EXTERIOR cause), you will have given it the nature of the Absolute, so the conclusion is that the Absolute exists, whether he is the infinite regress itself or the exterior cause of the existence (occurrence) of infinite regress.

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

Basically since the first time that animals had evolved with the ability to question their existence and have the conscious awareness that they did exist (which is the first time they would be classified as human) things were explained almost entirely by the supernatural.

Weather was explained by gods' emotions; anger= thunder storm, sadness= rain, etc. People tried to solve their problems via methods of sacrifice, praying, bleeding themselves to release demons, etc.
Now we know why there is weather, why the sun goes up and down, why people get sick, etc. As decades pass and humans grow more knowledgeable about the world around them, supernatural ideas have less and less places to hide. Supernatural explanations are for pseudo-intellectuals and using the argument: "You don't know what causes this blah blah blah" may have been effective in the dark ages, but it isn't in the modern era.

Weather can be explained by laws of science. Reality beyond time and space cannot, because the laws of science we know refer only to time and space and had their beginning during the Big Bang.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I'm not just talking about little details; the Christ myth itself is a repost. The Indians and the Egyptians, for example, both had very similar tales well earlier (Krishna and Horus respectively).

So what? The only thing that Christ and Krishna have in common is God in a human form. Christ is not a tale; He was an actual historical figure. What is unique is that a carpenter 20 centuries ago started a new era, which lasts up until now.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

"They deserved it," huh? Very enlightened.

The description in the Bible that God directly destroyed savages does not have to be historically strict. Self-destruction (colloquially) is a mechanical consequence of sins. Indirectly, that mechanism originates from God. For example, if you take drugs, that will destroy your psyche as well as your body. A civilization, in which technological progress is not synchronized with morality, will eventually be self-destructed.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

He asked for peace of mind, not an exhaustive philosophical treatise.

Unfortunately, investigating the truth is exhausting. That doesn’t mean it's better to create an idealized vision of “how beautiful the world would be if we only freed ourselves from the chains of religion”. Let me play along with this game: Life would be so beautiful if there was no school. We would have vacation all year round. There would be no bells for class, no tests, no homework and overall no stress. We would be free to spend the time however we like.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Not even close to the mark. Yes, you can be a criminal if you want to be, in that you are physically capable of it and I probably could not stop you. There is no ultimate justification for caring about other people, only the convenient fact that we do.

Wouldn’t that ultimate justification for caring about other people be our conscience?

Originally Posted by Xujhan

If you think that the Catholic church is a bastion of righteousness, then I suggest that you watch the Intelligence Squared debate.
If instead you think that the church itself is deeply corrupted but that the ideologies are good you are I suppose slightly less wrong, but Christian morality is, on the whole, a disgusting thing.

I hear all these accusations towards the Church 24/7 in the media, so I do not see how you could have thought I haven’t heard of them. Let’s straighten things out. Members of the Church are sinners. However the Church is not the source of those sins, for sins come from disobeying the dogmas of the Church. I’d like you to explain what you find disgusting in Christian morality.
As for the accusations mentioned in the debate, they are manipulated. Let’s start with rape and sexual abuse among priests. This is a highly exaggerated issue, for according to statistics, the percentage of pedophiles among priests is under 1%. We cannot blame the idea of the Catholic Church for these cases as we cannot blame the idea of schools for pedophilia among teachers. Let’s move on to inquisition. When it was established, it was progress in judiciary, which was previously very primitive and based on torturing the suspect to entice him/her to admit to the crime. Inquisition came up with a more sophisticated trial with the jury (chosen from the most respected citizens) and all and also provided the suspect with the right for an advocate, access to the evidence of his/her guilt. There may have been corrupted inquisitors from time to time, but it’s not like there aren’t any corrupted judges nowadays. Even the number of death sentences (which were a normal standard in the historical context) has been highly exaggerated. Let’s move on to Crusades. The purpose of them was to recover the Holy Land from Muslims. There were of course orders that misused the idea of crusades and used them as an excuse for conquering lands, like the Teutonic Knights, but that was not accordant to what the Church proclaimed. As for anti-Semitism, how can it be a dogma of the Church since Christianity originates from Judaism? Let’s move on to discrimination towards women. It did not come out from the Catholic Church, but from the mentality of people back then. Let’s not forget that Christ spoke in favour of women and it is correct to say that He was the precursor of emancipation. As for the issue of condoms and AIDS, condoms do not completely protect from being infected with AIDS, for the virus can also be in the areas surrounding the sexual organs, which the condom does not cover. Faithfulness is the most efficient protection against AIDS. The pro-condom propaganda can result in increasing the infection of AIDS; because people are being convinced that using condoms is so safe, which then may lead them to a conclusion that therefore they can have sex with a vast amount of partners. As for the accusation that the Church was silent towards Hitler’s ideology, this is manipulation of historical facts. Vatican was in a difficult situation and the Church had to act on secret. Evident actions would only make the situation worse.
All this issues are manipulated and highly exaggerated for the use of the anti-Catholic propaganda.

[VeryConfusing]

Out of curiosity, which Church do you belong to? Because taking completely everything in the Bible literally is definitely not a Catholic view. And not taking everything literally does make sense. Let me give you an example of a text: “After being dumped by his girlfriend, his heart was burning in the flames of sorrow.” Does that mean the character’s heart was literally burning in flames of sorrow? No. Sometimes a literary description has to be used to highlight something. The description of creating the world in the Book of Genesis highlights that first of all, God created the world, second of all, mankind is a unique species, and third of all that there are two genders purposed for reproduction. There are more truths within the Book of Genesis, which I have not listed. Therefore I recommend Bibles with annotations. The Bible is not incorrect as long as it is not taken completely literally. The theological truth within it is correct.

I am formerly Christian. I understand this of course, but for my whole life I was taught that a lot of the stories were true.

Even if "god" meant the stories to be metaphorical, they are still quite vicious and evil. Sodom and Gomorrah, world-wide earth flood, etc.
Even metaphorically, why would you listen to this? It sounds like god is a pimp and if you don't bring in the amount of money he expects every night, he will beat you.

Plus you can't just plainly ignore the falsehoods of the bible; the bible says the earth is flat, the sun revolves around it, the moon produces it's own light, etc. If the bible were written by a god it would be scientifically sound.
------------------------------------------------------
First of all, let’s not talk about the authors of arguments (so called argumentum et persona), but about the arguments alone. Second of all, let me explain what seems to be the flaw of the Cosmological Argument. The cause of God’s existence is God himself, and the cause of that cause is also God etc… The infinite regress is within God. The Absolute (God) possesses all the properties needed to exist without an exterior cause. There has to be an absolute law that is in charge of the whole reality.

You can say that the infinite regress is within god, but I could also say that the infinite regress is within a tea cup.
-------------------------------------------------
Since there are no arguments definitely disproving the existence of God, then atheism is merely faith (without evidence) that God does not exist. Therefore atheism isn’t rational after all.


.... *facepalm*
Let me try to explain this to you again.
God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. An unfalsifiable hypothesis means that something is not capable of being proved false because the conditions are set up to make it that way.

For instance: I could say that there is a dragon living in my garage. I also say that you cannot see the dragon because it is invisible, you cannot hear the dragon because it is soundless, you cannot feel the dragon because it has a magical ability to make itself untouchable, you cannot smell the dragon, nor can you taste it. Can you disprove that there is a dragon in my garage? God is the same way. If you cannot sense something with any of the 5 senses there is no possible way it can be disproved.

Atheism is rational because it is more logical than any type of theism. You should be able to admit that the only reason you believe in the god you do is because of where you were born; what makes your god more plausible than Zeus, Thor, Krishna, Ptah, Unkulunkulu, Ptah, Atum, Nanabozho, Coatlique, Viracocha, Elohim, and all the other gods mankind has ever believed in?
For the same reason you don't believe in those gods, I don't believe in your god. There is more evidence for Santa Clause than there is for a god because at least you got physical evidence every x-mas as a child.
Choosing the correct god to have faith in would be like trying to win the lottery.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

I think that I've found a new respect for life because now I know that it's the only one I'll ever have. There isn't an eternity of never-ending consciousness to look forward to, there are only a few decades. This isn't a sad prospect to me. I feel extremely lucky to have the chance to live at all, AND live in a place where knowledge is very easily accessible (on top of that, I can have an endless pursuit of any type of knowledge I want because I'm not living under the rule of a suppressive government). What is the probability that I'd even be one of the people able to experience life at all ( in a financially comfortable way), and that I'd have the understanding that I am infinitely lucky in the first place?

"We are going to die and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here." --Richard Dawkins

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

The best decision I have ever made is to try and "test my faith" in god.
I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really want to thank you.

You are very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very welcome.

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

Now the only thing I'm really not looking forward to is going to church on Sunday. I don't know what I'm going to do about my parents because there is no way I'm going to be able to keep the secret that I'm atheist from them for 10-13ish years (since they are also going to pay my way through college). I think it's going to slip out, whether I want it to or not, very soon. I know that my parents love me, but I'm not sure how they would react towards my atheism. The best that I'd be able to hope for is that they'd only be extremely disappointed in me but respect my choices; the worst might be take away all my college funding until I faked being Christian again.

It is very possible that it will slip out at some point; if you and your parents otherwise get along well and they aren't too fundamentalist, you should be alright. Having to pay your own way through college isn't the worst thing in the world, even if it does come to that.

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

Off topic: I'm not too optimistic towards American politics either. I think that when it's decided that more money should be spent on saving lives, rather than taking them away ( health care over military), I'll be mostly happy.

That would certainly be a very good start.

Originally Posted by Socratica

The Bible says that love is the most important, more important than faith and hope. God is just. He takes in mind all the circumstances in which one acts. Lack of faith alone does not necessarily have to mean hell. Hell is for volunteers, who choose to sin with premeditation. Lack of knowledge that something was bad is a partial justification, which can save you from hell. But it is only partial because we have been given a wit that allows us to investigate morality.
Why don’t we look at this case from the other side? For our limited number of good deeds, despite our sins, we get all of eternity of happiness. Does that not make God merciful?

Nope. An infinite being has to do better than that. Or to put it more scathingly: an infinite god has to come up with a better system than I could possibly come up with as a human. Yahweh fails miserably by that measure.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Since there are no arguments definitely disproving the existence of God, then atheism is merely faith (without evidence) that God does not exist. Therefore atheism isn’t rational after all.

Congratulations! You have just accurately described the beliefs of not a single damn atheist I have ever met. Put the strawman down; none of us are impressed. If you don't even understand what atheism generally entails, you've got no business criticizing it.

Originally Posted by Socratica

The description in the Bible that God directly destroyed savages does not have to be historically strict. Self-destruction (colloquially) is a mechanical consequence of sins. Indirectly, that mechanism originates from God. For example, if you take drugs, that will destroy your psyche as well as your body. A civilization, in which technological progress is not synchronized with morality, will eventually be self-destructed.

Is this what you actually believe? That the entire old testament is basically a metaphor for people killing each other?

Originally Posted by Socratica

I hear all these accusations towards the Church 24/7 in the media, so I do not see how you could have thought I haven’t heard of them. Let’s straighten things out. Members of the Church are sinners. However the Church is not the source of those sins, for sins come from disobeying the dogmas of the Church. I’d like you to explain what you find disgusting in Christian morality.

Happily!

It seems incredibly wrong to me that the one road to salvation is to accept another person's blood sacrifice as payment for your faults. Even if the entire damn bible were otherwise full of sunshine and rainbows, that would be morally reprihensible. Unfortunately, the bible isn't so nice; it teaches that humans are sinful, evil creatures who should be ashamed of natures that they had no say in choosing. It also teaches that even though Yahweh made us this way and then condemned us for the way he made us, we should still love him and be grateful that he didn't do worse. Blood sacrifice, inherited sin, obligatory love, eternal punishment; these are not moral. Not even close. The character of Jesus himself had some pretty good ideas - sermon on the mount type stuff - but the Christian religion as a whole is disgusting.

Originally Posted by Socratica

As for the accusations mentioned in the debate, they are manipulated. Let’s start with rape and sexual abuse among priests. This is a highly exaggerated issue, for according to statistics, the percentage of pedophiles among priests is under 1%. We cannot blame the idea of the Catholic Church for these cases as we cannot blame the idea of schools for pedophilia among teachers. As for the issue of condoms and AIDS, condoms do not completely protect from being infected with AIDS, for the virus can also be in the areas surrounding the sexual organs, which the condom does not cover. Faithfulness is the most efficient protection against AIDS. The pro-condom propaganda can result in increasing the infection of AIDS; because people are being convinced that using condoms is so safe, which then may lead them to a conclusion that therefore they can have sex with a vast amount of partners.

Spoken like a true apologist. I've cut away the stuff about the church in history because I don't give a damn what dead guys did; it's the ones who are still alive that bother me. Now, on the two points remaining:

The number of priestly molestations is not the whole issue, nor is it even the main part of the issue, I would say. The really objectionable thing is that the Church is evidently more interested in protecting the abusers than in the children and teenagers who either were abused or who are at risk of it. Even were it just a handful of priests - and it's certainly more than that - this would be abhorrent.

As for the condom issue: fuck that. That is some of the most twisted reasoning I've ever encountered, and you're using it to excuse a campaign that is directly leaing to the deaths of innocent people. "Abstinence-only education" - and don't lie, that's exactly what you're preaching - has been proven to not only not work, but to fail so hard that it would be laughable if only the consequences weren't so serious. But then, if you're willing to defend a primitive fear of sex at the cost of other people's lives, I suppose Christianity is certainly the right religion for you.


（╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

For those who enjoy numbers, let's play a game. Assume that the average person has 10 sexual partners in their lifetime, that you are guaranteed to get AIDS from a carrier from unprotected sex, and that you have a 10% chance of getting AIDS from a carrier while using a condom. That's quite generous to Socratica's position; I'm fairly certain the actual chance is lower. Now, for condoms to actually cause more AIDS infections than the church's anti-condom campaign, the average person would need to jump from 10 partners to over 100, as a result of that increased feeling of safety.

That seems likely.

[Socratica]

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

I am formerly Christian. I understand this of course, but for my whole life I was taught that a lot of the stories were true.

But I mean which branch of the Church did you belong to? Protestant? Catholic? Anglican?

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

Even if "god" meant the stories to be metaphorical, they are still quite vicious and evil. Sodom and Gomorrah, world-wide earth flood, etc.
Even metaphorically, why would you listen to this? It sounds like god is a pimp and if you don't bring in the amount of money he expects every night, he will beat you.

As I said previously, self-destruction is a mechanical consequence of sin. It’s not God’s revenge. The parable of the worldwide flood was supposed to be a forecast of baptism. Once again, I advise you to get a Bible with annotations.

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

Plus you can't just plainly ignore the falsehoods of the bible; the bible says the earth is flat, the sun revolves around it, the moon produces it's own light, etc. If the bible were written by a god it would be scientifically sound.

God isn’t the direct author of the Bible. A man enlightened with the theological message wrote the Bible. He wasn’t all knowing as God is. He did have to do some research to write it and his scientific knowledge was no bigger than that of other people living in his time. Even if the author had been enlightened with scientific knowledge, I don’t think it would make the Bible any more credible, because first of all, it would be a controversy to people living in the time when it was first published and second of all, our generation could say that the advanced scientific knowledge was passed on to the author by aliens.

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

You can say that the infinite regress is within god, but I could also say that the infinite regress is within a tea cup.

No, you can’t, because a teacup has exterior causes.
__________________________________________________ ________________________________
And coming back to infinite regress as a case which reputedly requires no God (the pulsating universe), where does the law of causality (the foundation of infinite regress) come from if there is no God?
__________________________________________________ _______________________________

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

.... *facepalm*
Let me try to explain this to you again.
God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. An unfalsifiable hypothesis means that something is not capable of being proved false because the conditions are set up to make it that way.

For instance: I could say that there is a dragon living in my garage. I also say that you cannot see the dragon because it is invisible, you cannot hear the dragon because it is soundless, you cannot feel the dragon because it has a magical ability to make itself untouchable, you cannot smell the dragon, nor can you taste it. Can you disprove that there is a dragon in my garage? God is the same way. If you cannot sense something with any of the 5 senses there is no possible way it can be disproved.

The senses are not the only apparatus for investigating reality. We also have wit. In fact, the wit is more trustworthy than the senses, for the senses can be deceiving us. There is no physical evidence that God exists, but there is logical evidence proving His existence. Meanwhile atheists have no evidence whatsoever disproving God’s existence. Therefore it would be more rational for them to declare themselves as agnostics.

Originally Posted by VeryConfusing

Atheism is rational because it is more logical than any type of theism. You should be able to admit that the only reason you believe in the god you do is because of where you were born; what makes your god more plausible than Zeus, Thor, Krishna, Ptah, Unkulunkulu, Ptah, Atum, Nanabozho, Coatlique, Viracocha, Elohim, and all the other gods mankind has ever believed in?
For the same reason you don't believe in those gods, I don't believe in your god. There is more evidence for Santa Clause than there is for a god because at least you got physical evidence every x-mas as a child.
Choosing the correct god to have faith in would be like trying to win the lottery.

Where I was born is not the only reason I believe in God. I find God a logical necessity for the existence of the whole reality. God is the law that is in charge of the whole reality. God is logic. Those gods you listed do not match the definition of the Absolute, for there is a lot that limits them. Zeus, for instance, had to eat ambrosia to be immortal. The Absolute cannot be dependent on anything, for then He would not be the Absolute. And there can only be one God, so that eliminates polytheism and we’re left with only three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and deism to choose from.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Nope. An infinite being has to do better than that. Or to put it more scathingly: an infinite god has to come up with a better system than I could possibly come up with as a human. Yahweh fails miserably by that measure.

Could you come up with the Sacrament of the Holy Communion as a road to salvation?

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Congratulations! You have just accurately described the beliefs of not a single damn atheist I have ever met. Put the strawman down; none of us are impressed. If you don't even understand what atheism generally entails, you've got no business criticizing it.

What do you mean I don’t know what atheism entails? The definition is within the name itself: a-theism. You atheists consider yourselves rational, but actually your attitude is irrational, because you believe in a thesis you cannot prove. And when you’re presented with logical arguments successfully proving the existence of God, you run away to trivalent logic, which is probably the peak of irrationality and definitely doesn’t help support your thesis.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Is this what you actually believe? That the entire old testament is basically a metaphor for people killing each other?

Not the entire testament is a metaphor. The bigger part of it is about the history of Israel. It might not always be historically strict, but what’s important is the relationship between Israel and God. The reason God acted the way He did back then, it was “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Matthew 19:8) and to prevent the threat of decadence and the apogee of evil.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Happily!

It seems incredibly wrong to me that the one road to salvation is to accept another person's blood sacrifice as payment for your faults. Even if the entire damn bible were otherwise full of sunshine and rainbows, that would be morally reprihensible. Unfortunately, the bible isn't so nice; it teaches that humans are sinful, evil creatures who should be ashamed of natures that they had no say in choosing. It also teaches that even though Yahweh made us this way and then condemned us for the way he made us, we should still love him and be grateful that he didn't do worse. Blood sacrifice, inherited sin, obligatory love, eternal punishment; these are not moral. Not even close. The character of Jesus himself had some pretty good ideas - sermon on the mount type stuff - but the Christian religion as a whole is disgusting.

First of all, Jesus is not only a human, He is also God and He chose this way of saving us out of His own will. He planned it from the very beginning. Second of all, God does not condemn us for our free will. In fact, He doesn’t condemn us at all. He condemns the bad deeds alone, for those destroy humanity. Hell is a consequence of having destroyed one’s own soul. I hear arguments that by having given us free will, God is responsible for all the evil in the world. However without free will, we would be like robots programmed only for good. Besides, we have been given a conscience which gives us a trace of morality, and a wit to be able to investigate morality more deeply.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Spoken like a true apologist. I've cut away the stuff about the church in history because I don't give a damn what dead guys did; it's the ones who are still alive that bother me. Now, on the two points remaining:

The number of priestly molestations is not the whole issue, nor is it even the main part of the issue, I would say. The really objectionable thing is that the Church is evidently more interested in protecting the abusers than in the children and teenagers who either were abused or who are at risk of it. Even were it just a handful of priests - and it's certainly more than that - this would be abhorrent.

What exactly makes it seem to you that the Church is more interested in protecting the abusers? The Church cannot put any penalty on the abuser until his guilt is proved. Once that happens, the Church claims that the abuser has been excommunicated (for excommunication occurs automatically at the moment of committing the offence). The rest of the penalties (prison for instance) are up to the profane judge.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

As for the condom issue: fuck that. That is some of the most twisted reasoning I've ever encountered, and you're using it to excuse a campaign that is directly leaing to the deaths of innocent people. "Abstinence-only education" - and don't lie, that's exactly what you're preaching - has been proven to not only not work, but to fail so hard that it would be laughable if only the consequences weren't so serious. But then, if you're willing to defend a primitive fear of sex at the cost of other people's lives, I suppose Christianity is certainly the right religion for you.

For those who enjoy numbers, let's play a game. Assume that the average person has 10 sexual partners in their lifetime, that you are guaranteed to get AIDS from a carrier from unprotected sex, and that you have a 10% chance of getting AIDS from a carrier while using a condom. That's quite generous to Socratica's position; I'm fairly certain the actual chance is lower. Now, for condoms to actually cause more AIDS infections than the church's anti-condom campaign, the average person would need to jump from 10 partners to over 100, as a result of that increased feeling of safety.

That seems likely.

First of all, it is your reasoning that is twisted. How can the pro-abstinence (in couples in which one partner is a carrier) and faithfulness campaign DIRECTLY(???) lead to increasing the infection with AIDS? Second of all, the Church values health above sex, so even if a couple (in which one partner is a carrier) was to be faithful, using a condom would not be right either. The more times sexual intercourse occurs, the higher the risk of infection, even with a condom. If someone considers sex worth risking his/her health, s/he may do as s/he pleases; the Church does not force anyone. Thirdly, if the Church gave permission to use condoms, it would be like saying, “Ok, kids, you can play with matches all you like as long as you have an extinguisher with you.” Fourthly, your accusation that the Church has a fear of sex is baseless. If sex is to be compared to the culture of eating (as in the Intelligence2 Debate), then the Church offers us a well-balanced diet, not anorexia. The Church considers sexual intercourse a beautiful thing when in harmony with true love and the will to give life. Pleasure is not the only purpose of sex. Seeing sex only as a source of pleasure is the primitive attitude.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Socratica

Could you come up with the Sacrament of the Holy Communion as a road to salvation?

What the heck is so good about that? Here's a better system; each consciousness is allowed to live the experiences it needs to attain goodness and peace. At the end of that cycle, each mind attains a divinity equal to mine and creates a new universe of their own to nurture. No salvation or punishment required, more happiness for everyone. Yahweh's little world is a miserable undertaking for a supposedly all-powerful being.

Originally Posted by Socratica

What do you mean I don’t know what atheism entails? The definition is within the name itself: a-theism. You atheists consider yourselves rational, but actually your attitude is irrational, because you believe in a thesis you cannot prove. And when you’re presented with logical arguments successfully proving the existence of God, you run away to trivalent logic, which is probably the peak of irrationality and definitely doesn’t help support your thesis.

I mean you don't know what atheism is. You just gave the exact same description, and it's just as wrong. Does it not even bother you that an atheist is telling you that you don't understand what atheism is, or just presume to know us better than we know ourselves? Did you attempt to actually research the point at all? That sounds a very great deal like pride and arrogance to me; aren't you supposed to avoid that?

Originally Posted by Socratica

Not the entire testament is a metaphor. The bigger part of it is about the history of Israel. It might not always be historically strict, but what’s important is the relationship between Israel and God. The reason God acted the way He did back then, it was “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Matthew 19:8) and to prevent the threat of decadence and the apogee of evil.

Evil was a threat to god? A threat so great that his best solution was mass-genocide of his own children? I thought he was all-powerful. You're not even painting your own god in a flattering light here.

Originally Posted by Socratica

First of all, Jesus is not only a human, He is also God and He chose this way of saving us out of His own will. He planned it from the very beginning. Second of all, God does not condemn us for our free will. In fact, He doesn’t condemn us at all. He condemns the bad deeds alone, for those destroy humanity. Hell is a consequence of having destroyed one’s own soul. I hear arguments that by having given us free will, God is responsible for all the evil in the world. However without free will, we would be like robots programmed only for good. Besides, we have been given a conscience which gives us a trace of morality, and a wit to be able to investigate morality more deeply.

If it would be wrong of me to accept the blood sacrifice of a good human, isn't it then infinitely wrose to accept the blood sacrifice of an infinitely good being? I'm not making any arguments about free will and evil, so I don't know why you're bringing those up unless you're running out of defenses. But since you raise the point: do people in heaven have the freedom to do evil if they wish to?

Originally Posted by Socratica

What exactly makes it seem to you that the Church is more interested in protecting the abusers? The Church cannot put any penalty on the abuser until his guilt is proved. Once that happens, the Church claims that the abuser has been excommunicated (for excommunication occurs automatically at the moment of committing the offence). The rest of the penalties (prison for instance) are up to the profane judge.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In addition to cases of actual abuse, much of the scandal has focused around members of the Catholic hierarchy who did not report abuse allegations to the civil authorities and who, in many cases, reassigned the offenders to other locations where the alleged predators continued to have contact with minors and had opportunities to continue to sexually abuse children

Them's the accusations. Your google-fu needs work.

Originally Posted by Socratica

First of all, it is your reasoning that is twisted. How can the pro-abstinence (in couples in which one partner is a carrier) and faithfulness campaign DIRECTLY(???) lead to increasing the infection with AIDS? Second of all, the Church values health above sex, so even if a couple (in which one partner is a carrier) was to be faithful, using a condom would not be right either. The more times sexual intercourse occurs, the higher the risk of infection, even with a condom. If someone considers sex worth risking his/her health, s/he may do as s/he pleases; the Church does not force anyone. Thirdly, if the Church gave permission to use condoms, it would be like saying, “Ok, kids, you can play with matches all you like as long as you have an extinguisher with you.”

Because abstinence-only education doesn't work. This is proven fact. It doesn't stop people from having sex; it stops them from having safe sex. Let's dig up some stats on that one.

Abstinence-only:

Findings indicate that youth in the program group were no more likely than control group youth to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex, they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age.... Program and control group youth did not differ in their rates of unprotected sex, either at first intercourse or over the last 12 months.... Overall, the programs improved identification of STDs but had no overall impact on knowledge of unprotected sex risks and the consequences of STDs. Both program and control group youth had a good understanding of the risks of pregnancy but a less clear understanding of STDs and their health consequences.

Comprehensive sex education:

Many analysts and researchers agree that effective pregnancy prevention programs (1) convince teens that not having sex or that using contraception consistently and carefully is the right thing to do; (2) last a sufficient length of time (i.e., more than a few weeks); (3) are operated by leaders who believe in their programs and who are adequately trained; (4) actively engage participants and personalize the program information; (5) address peer pressure issues; (6) teach communication skills; and (7) reflect the age, sexual experience, and culture of young persons in the programs.

Source: http://www.sexedlibrary.org/_data/gl...20Programs.pdf

Now let's not forget, your precious pope isn't just forgetting to mention that condoms are good; he's actively campaigning against them. The results from that would be even more detrimental than normal abstinence-only education.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Fourthly, your accusation that the Church has a fear of sex is baseless. If sex is to be compared to the culture of eating (as in the Intelligence2 Debate), then the Church offers us a well-balanced diet, not anorexia. The Church considers sexual intercourse a beautiful thing when in harmony with true love and the will to give life. Pleasure is not the only purpose of sex. Seeing sex only as a source of pleasure is the primitive attitude.

Certainly the Church considers it that way, but that has no bearing on whether that's actually a healthy or effective approach (spoilers: it isn't). Pleasure is not the only use of sex, but it is one of them. Insisting that people cannot use sex for just pleasure is no more sensible than suggesting that they use it only for pleasure. Good attempt at painting yourself into the moderate position, but it's not. There are plenty of healthy approaches to human sexuality, and none involve mandatory abstinence.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Socratica

What do you mean I don’t know what atheism entails? The definition is within the name itself: a-theism. You atheists consider yourselves rational, but actually your attitude is irrational, because you believe in a thesis you cannot prove. And when you’re presented with logical arguments successfully proving the existence of God, you run away to trivalent logic, which is probably the peak of irrationality and definitely doesn’t help support your thesis.

Not really my debate, but I felt that I should point out an incorrect part here.
There is no thesis. There is no single 'belief' and there is no theory. Atheists realise that there is no evidence for God or Gods and as such the belief in any is pointless. The fact that there is no evidence means that you should not believe it, although that doesn't mean it's not true.
Also, I'd like to see what 'successful logical arguments' you've invented that prove God's existence, because not a single one has held up to scrutiny since religion's beginning. Actual professional philosophers debate, study and critique theories surrounding God, such as the Theory Of First Cause (which I believe you may have mentioned earlier) and found them wanting.

Originally Posted by Socratica

First of all, it is your reasoning that is twisted. How can the pro-abstinence (in couples in which one partner is a carrier) and faithfulness campaign DIRECTLY(???) lead to increasing the infection with AIDS?

Abstinence-only sex education doesn't work. Period. It leads to unprotected sex, which leads to an increase in STDs. The Pope actively campaigning against protection and for abstinence-only protection directly results in more of the above behaviour.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Second of all, the Church values health above sex, so even if a couple (in which one partner is a carrier) was to be faithful, using a condom would not be right either. The more times sexual intercourse occurs, the higher the risk of infection, even with a condom. If someone considers sex worth risking his/her health, s/he may do as s/he pleases; the Church does not force anyone.

That's a really, really weak argument. In fact, i don't believe I've ever seen anyone, in my entire life, argue that the Church's stance on condoms in countries like Africa is right. It just seems like we've moved on to a point in civilisation where we realise, by default, that condoms are a good idea, full stop, and that any attempts to reduce their usage without offering a valid alternative (Such as saying you can take a pill instead of damaging the environment with the rubber) are just simply barbaric.

It took a lot of my willpower to actually muster up the willingness to bother responding to such an inane point, but I'll do it.

1. That is unequivocally not the case. They are not against condoms because of STDs, although I'm pretty sure the priest are all to aware of them by now, they are against them because of their incredibly literal interpretation of the Bible, in that they believe that the Potential for Life is lost when you put a barrier between the sperm and the egg, and that that is a sin.
2. Your argument actually.. works against itself. You say they value health over sex, and yet they say not to use condoms. That in itself is working against itself. If you value sex, then you promote the use of condoms.
3. Yes, you're right to a degree that as the frequency of sex increases the chance of an STD also increases. However, I don't believe it's possible for two people to catch an STD off each other unless one has sex with someone else. In which case, they're not faithful and, in this case, a condom would help prevent it.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Thirdly, if the Church gave permission to use condoms, it would be like saying, “Ok, kids, you can play with matches all you like as long as you have an extinguisher with you.”

Oh dear.
Oh deary dear.

I don't think I even know when to start.
I just..
Comparing the permission to use condoms to children playing with matches?
>implying that the use of condoms carries a risk to personal wellbeing

Originally Posted by Socratica

Fourthly, your accusation that the Church has a fear of sex is baseless. If sex is to be compared to the culture of eating (as in the Intelligence2 Debate), then the Church offers us a well-balanced diet, not anorexia. The Church considers sexual intercourse a beautiful thing when in harmony with true love and the will to give life. Pleasure is not the only purpose of sex. Seeing sex only as a source of pleasure is the primitive attitude.

You either don't know much about the church or you're trying to lie in an attempt to make them look better than they are.
The Church's official stance is that the only purpose of sex is for reproduction.
The only purpose. They do not see sex also having a purpose for pleasure. Hence their stance on Condoms and other things used to prevent pregnancy.
I'd argue that an equally primitive attitude is to see sex only for reproductive purposes. The idea is to strike a balance between realising the purpose of pregnancy and the purpose of attitude - something the Church gets a grade F in, I'm afraid.

[Socratica]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

What the heck is so good about that? Here's a better system; each consciousness is allowed to live the experiences it needs to attain goodness and peace. At the end of that cycle, each mind attains a divinity equal to mine and creates a new universe of their own to nurture. No salvation or punishment required, more happiness for everyone. Yahweh's little world is a miserable undertaking for a supposedly all-powerful being.

Criminals would be delighted with such a system. The more stubborn they’d be in doing bad, the longer they’d live without the fear that they’ll die before they manage to convert to good. And once they’d get bored with doing bad, they’d convert themselves back to good and find as big a reward after death as that of a saint. A marvelous system indeed.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I mean you don't know what atheism is. You just gave the exact same description, and it's just as wrong. Does it not even bother you that an atheist is telling you that you don't understand what atheism is, or just presume to know us better than we know ourselves? Did you attempt to actually research the point at all? That sounds a very great deal like pride and arrogance to me; aren't you supposed to avoid that?

Why don’t you tell me what exactly I don’t understand about atheism? My judgement of it was based on my own observations, so I don’t suppose I will find the exact same thing in the internet. Besides, there are many types of atheism, so I’d like to know which one you identify yourself with.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Evil was a threat to god? A threat so great that his best solution was mass-genocide of his own children? I thought he was all-powerful. You're not even painting your own god in a flattering light here.

No, evil was not a threat to God. It was a threat to people. God wanted to prevent it without interfering with the peoples’ free will.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

If it would be wrong of me to accept the blood sacrifice of a good human, isn't it then infinitely worse to accept the blood sacrifice of an infinitely good being? I'm not making any arguments about free will and evil, so I don't know why you're bringing those up unless you're running out of defenses. But since you raise the point: do people in heaven have the freedom to do evil if they wish to?

If God himself, the Master of morality offers us His blood sacrifice, there can’t be anything wrong with accepting it. After all, it’s not a life-for-life payment, but life-for-soul. Besides, Christ’s sacrifice was not only payment for our sins, but also a gesture of God’s solidarity with people and giving suffering and death a purpose. It’s how God tells us that we’re not alone with our pains. Furthermore, Christ as a 100% human is a representative of humanity and a role model for all people.
As for the free will issue, I brought it up because I thought that was what you were refering to when you spoke of “God condemning us for the way He made us”. As for your question about people in heaven: yes, they will have that freedom. However God knows that the people that will go to heaven are the ones that won’t chose evil.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Certainly the Church considers it that way, but that has no bearing on whether that's actually a healthy or effective approach (spoilers: it isn't). Pleasure is not the only use of sex, but it is one of them. Insisting that people cannot use sex for just pleasure is no more sensible than suggesting that they use it only for pleasure. Good attempt at painting yourself into the moderate position, but it's not. There are plenty of healthy approaches to human sexuality, and none involve mandatory abstinence.

Using sex only as a source of pleasure is treating another person’s body like a toy. Ever considered that? Even if someone lets another treat his/her body that way, it’s lack of respect for one’s own body.

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Not really my debate, but I felt that I should point out an incorrect part here.
There is no thesis. There is no single 'belief' and there is no theory. Atheists realise that there is no evidence for God or Gods and as such the belief in any is pointless. The fact that there is no evidence means that you should not believe it, although that doesn't mean it's not true.

It is agnostic atheism you are speaking of. But then I suppose all atheists are agnostic atheists, for none of them is able to disprove the existence of God. I don’t find this approach any more rational than agnostic theism. It’s like someone was to state that aliens don’t exist just because there hasn’t been any evidence of them. And vice versa.
.

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Also, I'd like to see what 'successful logical arguments' you've invented that prove God's existence, because not a single one has held up to scrutiny since religion's beginning. Actual professional philosophers debate, study and critique theories surrounding God, such as the Theory Of First Cause (which I believe you may have mentioned earlier) and found them wanting.

One of my arguments was inspired by the atheists’ infinite regress theory. Acknowledging the possibility of infinite regress by atheists is meant to demonstrate that the origin of the universe does not have to be God, but an infinite chain of causes. The fault of this argument is that it stops only upon the origin of the universe. My question is: what is the origin of the law of causality (the engine of infinite regress)?

My other argument is: If logic (in the understanding that it’s a set of laws which “forbids” contradictions from occurring in reality and “makes sure” that all details of reality are consistent with each other) is in charge of the whole reality and reality is all that there is, then there is nothing else that could be in charge of logic. Therefore logic is the Absolute. A counterargument towards this argument which I have encountered is acknowledging the possibility that another point of reality (inaccessible for us humans) may be ruled by trivalent logic. It is a mistake to bring up such a counterargument, because all it demonstrates is that there may be more than one truth and that therefore God may both exist and not exist. Trivalent logic is an epic failure in attempting to support any bivalent-logically-based thesis whatsoever. My question to approvers of trivalent logic is: would trivalent logic exist, not exist or both exist and not exist?

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Abstinence-only sex education doesn't work. Period. It leads to unprotected sex, which leads to an increase in STDs. The Pope actively campaigning against protection and for abstinence-only protection directly results in more of the above behaviour.

Then what are you expecting the Pope to do? Use reverse psychology to convince couples (in which one partner is a carrier) to be abstinent? That would be like telling your children to play with matches because banning it brought opposite effects. If someone only obeys part of the church’s preachings on protection against HIVs, it is obvious it will not bring the right result. To fully obey the preaching of the Church, it isn’t enough to just not use anticonception, you must also be abstinent IF you or your partner has HIV and of course faithful. Only those three factors put together will truly protect from the infection of HIV. That people do not obey the second two factors is not the problem of the preachings but of the people’s obedience. If you only obey some of the traffic signs, it is obvious that it won’t guarantee you safety.

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

That's a really, really weak argument. In fact, i don't believe I've ever seen anyone, in my entire life, argue that the Church's stance on condoms in countries like Africa is right. It just seems like we've moved on to a point in civilisation where we realise, by default, that condoms are a good idea, full stop, and that any attempts to reduce their usage without offering a valid alternative (Such as saying you can take a pill instead of damaging the environment with the rubber) are just simply barbaric.

It took a lot of my willpower to actually muster up the willingness to bother responding to such an inane point, but I'll do it.

1. That is unequivocally not the case. They are not against condoms because of STDs, although I'm pretty sure the priest are all to aware of them by now, they are against them because of their incredibly literal interpretation of the Bible, in that they believe that the Potential for Life is lost when you put a barrier between the sperm and the egg, and that that is a sin.
2. Your argument actually.. works against itself. You say they value health over sex, and yet they say not to use condoms. That in itself is working against itself. If you value sex, then you promote the use of condoms.
3. Yes, you're right to a degree that as the frequency of sex increases the chance of an STD also increases. However, I don't believe it's possible for two people to catch an STD off each other unless one has sex with someone else. In which case, they're not faithful and, in this case, a condom would help prevent it.

Annotation 1. I know that the Church is not against condoms due to STDs. However „losing the Potencial for Life” is not the case either. The case is that the use of anticonception comes with the approach that one’s partener has to be ready at all times like a bottle of beer in the fridge. Even if the approach is mutual in the couple, does that make it much better? A person must not treat the other like a bottle of beer nor let himself/herself be treated like one either.
Annotation 2. What I meant was that having sex is not worth risking one’s health by any measure when one’s partner has HIV. Nor is it right to risk your partner’s health when you have HIV. Even when the risk was to be reduced to 10% by a condom, it is not worth it either.
Annotation 3. Some STDs can be genetically inherited. That’s how someone faithful can be infected. Regarding your last sentence, why do you suggest giving the unfaithful condoms so that they can continue to be unfaithful instead of teaching them faithfulness?

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Oh dear.
Oh deary dear.

I don't think I even know when to start.
I just..
Comparing the permission to use condoms to children playing with matches?
>implying that the use of condoms carries a risk to personal wellbeing

You got me wrong. I compared condoms to the extinguisher and sex without responsibility to playing with matches.

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

You either don't know much about the church or you're trying to lie in an attempt to make them look better than they are.
The Church's official stance is that the only purpose of sex is for reproduction.
The only purpose. They do not see sex also having a purpose for pleasure. Hence their stance on Condoms and other things used to prevent pregnancy.
I'd argue that an equally primitive attitude is to see sex only for reproductive purposes. The idea is to strike a balance between realising the purpose of pregnancy and the purpose of attitude - something the Church gets a grade F in, I'mafraid.

Either you’re lying about the Church’s stance on sex or you’ve misunderstood the doctrine you read. Therefore I’d like you to tell me where you found such information. Here’s the Church’s official stance on sexual intercourse:
“Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
"Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143
Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.144
"The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146” (CCC 2360-2362)

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Socratica

Criminals would be delighted with such a system. The more stubborn they’d be in doing bad, the longer they’d live without the fear that they’ll die before they manage to convert to good. And once they’d get bored with doing bad, they’d convert themselves back to good and find as big a reward after death as that of a saint. A marvelous system indeed.

And this is what I find so depressing about Christianity; this insistence that people can only be good through fear of suffering. That's not goodness; that's just self-preservation. If fear of punishment is the only thing keeping you from being evil, then you'd run over your own grandmother with a dump truck if Jesus threatened to take away your pokemon cards. Real goodness is being willing to do the right thing in spite of the consequences to yourself, not becuase of them.

Secondly; it shows how little meaning "good" really has for you if you think an evil person can just flip a switch at will and become good to a degree that would satisfy a divine judge. Hell, by your own reasoning Saint Paul should be burning because he was once not good. If someone is a good person, they absolutely should be treated as a good person regardless of their past. Our human justice system is stricter, but that's because we have no way or know with certainty that a person is actually, honestly good. A god, obviously, would not be so hampered.

In any event though, your criticism falls flat on its face. The physical world would appear exactly as it does now, and a person in one mortal life would not retain explicit memories from their previous lives, so the criminals wouldn't have any more priviledged information than they do now. Any criticism of the system based on what people do while they're alive applies equally well to yours.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Why don’t you tell me what exactly I don’t understand about atheism? My judgement of it was based on my own observations, so I don’t suppose I will find the exact same thing in the internet. Besides, there are many types of atheism, so I’d like to know which one you identify yourself with.

The same as almost all atheists I've ever met or heard of; that it's impossible to strictly prove a negative. Very few atheists that I know of profess a belief that there is no god. A much more accurate description would be this: "There may exist a godlike being somewhere in reality, but at present we do not have sufficient evidence to make belief in the existence of such a being reasonable." To this, you could also add that the specific human religions are almost certainly fictitious, since they're simply individual uneducated guesses from a nearly infinite pool of possibilities.

Originally Posted by Socratica

No, evil was not a threat to God. It was a threat to people. God wanted to prevent it without interfering with the peoples’ free will.

Evil was a threat to people so god...killed all the people. So that he wouldn't interfere with their free will.

Awesome. I love it when other people prove my points for me.

Originally Posted by Socratica

If God himself, the Master of morality offers us His blood sacrifice, there can’t be anything wrong with accepting it. After all, it’s not a life-for-life payment, but life-for-soul. Besides, Christ’s sacrifice was not only payment for our sins, but also a gesture of God’s solidarity with people and giving suffering and death a purpose. It’s how God tells us that we’re not alone with our pains. Furthermore, Christ as a 100% human is a representative of humanity and a role model for all people.

Sure there's something wrong with accepting it; you're absolving yourself of your responsibilities by accepting the sacrifice of an innocent as payment. In no reasonable system of morality is that a good thing to do. However, since you were kind enough to bring up my favourite unreasonable system of morality, let's talk divine command theory. Socrates has this one about right; is the good good because god wills it, or does god will good because it is good? In the former case, morality is arbitrary. In the latter case, moral duty trumps god's will.

Originally Posted by Socratica

As for the free will issue, I brought it up because I thought that was what you were refering to when you spoke of “God condemning us for the way He made us”. As for your question about people in heaven: yes, they will have that freedom. However God knows that the people that will go to heaven are the ones that won’t chose evil.

So if god has not done these people a disservice by making them in such a way that they will not choose to do evil, although they are capable of it, then god could just as well have created all people in such a way, and no one would have to suffer for the evils of others. Fantastic! Between the two of us we've just come up with yet another system that's better for everyone than poor old Yahweh's.

Originally Posted by Socratica

Using sex only as a source of pleasure is treating another person’s body like a toy. Ever considered that? Even if someone lets another treat his/her body that way, it’s lack of respect for one’s own body.

Boy oh boy do you ever need to take off the monochrome glasses. Has it occurred to you that there are more kinds of sex than simply sex within marriage and prostitution? Sex is delightfully expressive, and the range of human loves goes far beyond just the long-term monogamous romantic love. Why restrict sex to only expressing that one single thing when it is not only that one kind of love that can benefit fromnit? Sex is not exactly a non-renewable resource, after all; if two good friends have sex to express their appreciation for each other, or if three people all love each other deeply and wish to express that with sex, that does no damage to a similar expression of ardent love between a married couple. This strange obsession with the private lives of other people, and specifically the insinstence that these private lives adhere to very strict codes of behaviour, is downright unhealthy.

But since you mentioned this 'toy' idea, let's run with that one for a bit. If I pay money to watch a concert, am I not also treating the musicians as toys for my pleasure? I don't care to know anything about each individual violinist, after all; the personal suffering of the drummer don't concern me, nor do the peculiar fortunes of the conductor. Even were I interested, I'm sure the musicians would not be of any great mind to share those things with a complete stranger. No; clearly, when I attend a concert, it's because I want to experience the pleasure created by the actions of the musicians, nothing more or less. This matches your criteria precisely, so it seems that concerts are also bastions of immorality. Actually, all kinds of entertainment fall into this category: music, dance, acting, art, and so on. Why, if we're to safely avoid this sin, it's probably best to ujust avoid recreation altogether.

Yup, good old reductio ad absurdum.

Originally Posted by Socratica

It is agnostic atheism you are speaking of. But then I suppose all atheists are agnostic atheists, for none of them is able to disprove the existence of God. I don’t find this approach any more rational than agnostic theism. It’s like someone was to state that aliens don’t exist just because there hasn’t been any evidence of them. And vice versa.

You really don't get it, do you? "I do not believe X" is NOT the same statement as "X is false." For someone who claims to value logic so dearly, it boggles my mind that you don't grasp this very simple idea. Without good evidence one way or the other, admitted ignorance is the only rational stance.

I do also note, and with no great surprise, that you seem to have suddenly run out of things to say regarding the allegations of child-rape and STD-promotion. Conscience got your tongue?

[Socratica]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I do also note, and with no great surprise, that you seem to have suddenly run out of things to say regarding the allegations of child-rape and STD-promotion. Conscience got your tongue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...media_coverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...tation_efforts

As for STD, I wrote about it under quotes of MonsterCosmonaut. I advise you to read my posts more accurately.

[Socratica]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

And this is what I find so depressing about Christianity; this insistence that people can only be good through fear of suffering. That's not goodness; that's just self-preservation. If fear of punishment is the only thing keeping you from being evil, then you'd run over your own grandmother with a dump truck if Jesus threatened to take away your pokemon cards. Real goodness is being willing to do the right thing in spite of the consequences to yourself, not becuase of them.

I reckon that by “pokemon cards” you mean eternal life. Let’s straighten something out. Jesus does not blackmail anyone. As I have already said, hell is a mechanical consequence of having destroyed one’s own soul, not God’s revenge. As for being good, we Christians do it out of love for other people, for the truth, for beauty (in the spiritual meaning) and for God. Good is the direction in which our conscience navigates us as well as all other people. If you think I calculate the increase of my reward in heaven every time I do a good deed, you are mistaken. Contrary to what you’ve said, Christianity does teach us to do the right thing in spite of the consequences and to go upstream.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Secondly; it shows how little meaning “good” really has for you if you think an evil person can just flip a switch at will and become good to a degree that would satisfy a divine judge. Hell, by your own reasoning Saint Paul should be burning because he was once not good. If someone is a good person, they absolutely should be treated as a good person regardless of their past. Our human justice system is stricter, but that's because we have no way or know with certainty that a person is actually, honestly good. A god, obviously, would not be so hampered.

I’m not saying that an evil person cannot flip a switch. I’m saying that it is not right to deliberately do evil all one’s life and plot a plan to convert to good in one’s deathbed insolently counting on God’s forgiveness. Such an action is a sin against the Holy Spirit. Unless the person truly regrets the harm s/he has caused by the end of his/her life, s/he does not deserve to go to heaven.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

In any event though, your criticism falls flat on its face. The physical world would appear exactly as it does now, and a person in one mortal life would not retain explicit memories from their previous lives, so the criminals wouldn't have any more priviledged information than they do now. Any criticism of the system based on what people do while they're alive applies equally well to yours.

Previous lives? Did I get you right that you’re implying a sort of reincarnation?

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Evil was a threat to people so god...killed all the people. So that he wouldn't interfere with their free will.

No. One group of people carried a threat of evil to other people. And it is incorrect to say that God directly killed that group of people. The biblical description does not even have to be taken literally. It may be just meant to highlight that civilizations which reject morality are bound to be self-destructed.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Sure there's something wrong with accepting it; you're absolving yourself of your responsibilities by accepting the sacrifice of an innocent as payment. In no reasonable system of morality is that a good thing to do.

Let’s make it clear that accepting the sacrifice of Christ is not equal to absolving yourself of your responsibilities. In fact, it is an even bigger responsibility, for we have to make an effort to be worthy of that sacrifice.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

However, since you were kind enough to bring up my favourite <i>un</i>reasonable system of morality, let's talk divine command theory. Socrates has this one about right; is the good good because god wills it, or does god will good because it is good? In the former case, morality is arbitrary. In the latter case, moral duty trumps god's will.

God is goodness. Therefore saying that moral duty trumps God’s will is the same as saying that God trumps His own will.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

So if god has not done these people a disservice by making them in such a way that they will not choose to do evil, although they are capable of it, then god could just as well have created <i>all</i> people in such a way, and no one would have to suffer for the evils of others. Fantastic! Between the two of us we've just come up with yet another system that's better for everyone than poor old Yahweh's.

Doing good is about opposing evil, so if there was no evil, how could we do good? From God’s point of view all looks different. Good will win in the end anyway. Questioning the system of an infinitely intelligent being comes from human pride, which is the cause of all misfortunes.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Boy oh boy do you ever need to take off the monochrome glasses. Has it occurred to you that there are more kinds of sex than simply sex within marriage and prostitution? Sex is delightfully expressive, and the range of human loves goes far beyond just the long-term monogamous romantic love. Why restrict sex to only expressing that one single thing when it is not only that one kind of love that can benefit fromnit? Sex is not exactly a non-renewable resource, after all; if two good friends have sex to express their appreciation for each other, or if three people all love each other deeply and wish to express that with sex, that does no damage to a similar expression of ardent love between a married couple. This strange obsession with the private lives of other people, and specifically the insinstence that these private lives adhere to very strict codes of behaviour, is downright unhealthy.

Husband: You betrayed me!
Wife: It’s not what you think! I was only expressing my appreciation for him as a friend.
This is a situation your reasoning could lead to. Love should be human, total, faithful, exclusive and fertile (open—heartedness for accepting a child) for a relationship to last a lifetime.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

But since you mentioned this 'toy' idea, let's run with that one for a bit. If I pay money to watch a concert, am I not also treating the musicians as toys for my pleasure? I don't care to know anything about each individual violinist, after all; the personal suffering of the drummer don't concern me, nor do the peculiar fortunes of the conductor. Even were I interested, I'm sure the musicians would not be of any great mind to share those things with a complete stranger. No; clearly, when I attend a concert, it's because I want to experience the pleasure created by the actions of the musicians, nothing more or less. This matches your criteria precisely, so it seems that concerts are also bastions of immorality. Actually, all kinds of entertainment fall into this category: music, dance, acting, art, and so on. Why, if we're to safely avoid this sin, it's probably best to ujust avoid recreation altogether.
Yup, good old reductio ad absurdum.

Comparing sex to entertainment is a false analogy. When you watch a concert, the musicians don’t give you their bodies, but their works of art. Sex is about giving another one’s whole body. It is selfish to scorn such a gift by only using it for one’s own pleasure.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

The same as almost all atheists I've ever met or heard of; that it's impossible to strictly prove a negative. Very few atheists that I know of profess a belief that there is no god. A much more accurate description would be this: “There may exist a godlike being somewhere in reality, but at present we do not have sufficient evidence to make belief in the existence of such a being reasonable.” To this, you could also add that the specific human religions are almost certainly fictitious, since they're simply individual uneducated guesses from a nearly infinite pool of possibilities.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

You really don't get it, do you? &quot;I do not believe X&quot; is NOT the same statement as &quot;X is false.&quot; For someone who claims to value logic so dearly, it boggles my mind that you don't grasp this very simple idea. Without good evidence one way or the other, admitted ignorance is the <i>only</i> rational stance.

Since you claim that your stance is admitted ignorance, then you are an agnostic or at least an agnostic atheist. And I agree that it is a rational stance if you don’t see good evidence neither way and keep looking for such. However unless my memory deceives me, I have posted another of my arguments supporting God’s regarding the origin of the law of causality and you haven’t commented it yet. Common sense got your tongue?