[Liberator]

Here's the thing, much like your father(I would assume), He does have a plan for the universe that will proceed to it's conclusion, whether you do anything or not.  You aren't exactly part of it, you have a place, but it is your choice to participate or not.  The plan is not harmed, but(and I have seen this) the benefits of choosing for God far outweigh the benefits of choosing the other side or not choosing at all.  And it's not all after you die either.  The first benefit and possibly the greatest one is Peace.  Peace of the Soul, which leads to Peace of the Mind, which leads to Peace of the Life.  That is what is missing in today's world is Peace.

But you are free to choose not to, unlike some, I believe that you can change your decision at any time.  Though true deathbed conversions are rare, as a man who recognizes his final moments will grasp at any thing, it ultimately is a personal relationship between the person and God.

Also, the concept of Hell is kinda skewed.  Hell is not so much a place as it is an alternate state of being.  Being out of the presence of God.

Even here on Earth, you are in the presence of God, if not literally.  Hell is where God isn't.  Try to imagine a time in your life when you lonely, not alone, just lonely, as lonely as you have ever been.  Now take that feeling and magnify it by about a million times and that starts to describe Hell.

God is like a Father in that he wants what is best for you, individually.  He won't force you, but He will help you, all you have to do is ask.

[colecampbell666]

Here's the thing, much like your father(I would assume), He does have a plan for the universe that will proceed to it's conclusion, whether you do anything or not.  You aren't exactly part of it, you have a place, but it is your choice to participate or not.  The plan is not harmed, but(and I have seen this) the benefits of choosing for God far outweigh the benefits of choosing the other side or not choosing at all.  And it's not all after you die either.  The first benefit and possibly the greatest one is Peace.  Peace of the Soul, which leads to Peace of the Mind, which leads to Peace of the Life.  That is what is missing in today's world is Peace.

And this is my main problem with religion. It claims to be the only path. Humans can achieve peace without religion, we are naturally predisposed to group together and not kill each other. Whether or not we were made this way, religious belief is not a figure. Are monkeys religious? No. Do they have a complex society in which they live in relative peace? Yes.

But you are free to choose not to, unlike some, I believe that you can change your decision at any time.  Though true deathbed conversions are rare, as a man who recognizes his final moments will grasp at any thing, it ultimately is a personal relationship between the person and God.

The main problem I have with "god" is that he assumes me to be an imbecile. If he is omnipotent, surely he must be able to see that rational thinking is of benefit to advancement both socially and technologically, surely? Why doesn't he show undeniable proof rather than a convoluted old textbook and a few nutjobs?

Also, the concept of Hell is kinda skewed.  Hell is not so much a place as it is an alternate state of being.  Being out of the presence of God.

How come the church can change their views and beliefs? Last I checked the fiery inferno was what had been taught for centuries. Speaking of changing, what ever happened to the Earth being flat? What about the stars being holes in the sky?

Even here on Earth, you are in the presence of God, if not literally.  Hell is where God isn't.  Try to imagine a time in your life when you lonely, not alone, just lonely, as lonely as you have ever been.  Now take that feeling and magnify it by about a million times and that starts to describe Hell.

I'm not in the presence of god currently (which you will debate), and I feel fine.

God is like a Father in that he wants what is best for you, individually.  He won't force you, but He will help you, all you have to do is ask.

The thing is, churches and the like are specifically honed to create instinctive memories. If they make you associate god and religion with warm fuzzy feelings, you'll be more likely to stay with them, and they keep their power. This has the side effect of creating defensive fundieds and the like, which I am not tarring you as, although I have to admit you strike me as the type.

[Flipside]

I do Yoga, it's a little bit more expensive, but I do get my Sundays free.

[Scotty]

How come the church can change their views and beliefs? Last I checked the fiery inferno was what had been taught for centuries.

To paraphrase Revelation 20:11-15 (the passage that the fiery inferno is explained in):

The dead will stand before the throne to be judged.  The book of life is opened, and those gathered will be judged on what they have done.  For any whose name is not written in the book of life, he will be cast in to the lake of fire.

However, the lake is not explained in any great detail.  It could be assumed that the lake of fire is the fiery inferno you reference (probable in fact).  Reading farther into Revelation (21:27), it is said that nothing impure would be allowed to enter His temple, and it specifically references the book of life again.  This, to me, indicates that those who have been cast into the lake of fire are separate from Him.  No real view changing there.

Speaking of changing, what ever happened to the Earth being flat? What about the stars being holes in the sky?

Ask a scientist.  That's not the domain of religion.  As far as I have read, the Bible doesn't come out and say that the Earth is flat, or stars being holes in the sky.

The main problem I have with "god" is that he assumes me to be an imbecile. If he is omnipotent, surely he must be able to see that rational thinking is of benefit to advancement both socially and technologically, surely? Why doesn't he show undeniable proof rather than a convoluted old textbook and a few nutjobs?

That would be because, comparatively, you are.  As am I.  Out of curiosity, what passage/facet/phrase gives you that idea?  Yes, He is omnipotent.  However, the advancement of humanity socially and technologically is not part of His plan.  Lastly, because faith is a large part of His plan.  He doesn't want to force people to worship Him, He wants people to choose to because of their own beliefs and convictions.

On a side note, the Bible isn't that convoluted.  It makes sense, does not contradict itself, and lays down his plan.  Secondly, the prophets and Jesus weren't all nutjobs.

I'm not in the presence of god currently (which you will debate), and I feel fine.

You are correct, I will debate that point.  You are in the presence of God.  Whether you choose to acknowledge that or not is your own perogative.

If they make you associate god and religion with warm fuzzy feelings, you'll be more likely to stay with them, and they keep their power. This has the side effect of creating defensive fundieds and the like, which I am not tarring you as, although I have to admit you strike me as the type.

That, of course rests on the fact that the church has gained and intends to keep power.  I will grant you that I use "church" in the lowercase for a reason.  Not all (in fact most don't) seek power as the focal point of their existence.  I would dismiss the power arguement off-hand, but it seems to be significant to you.

Do I sound like a defensive fundie to you?

[General Battuta]

No, you sound pretty reasonable.

But given that Islam and the Quran incorporate Jesus, recognize his crucifixion and divine conception, describe his return before the end of the world and slaying of the beast just as Christianity does, and further elaborate God's plan, it seems like we've all been patched to a newer version, right? I mean, it's the same God in all three Abrahamic religions, and if he came out with a newer model, let's all upgrade!

 

I can't see any compelling reason why you'd pick one of these religions over another except for the fact that you were raised in it.

[Scotty]

My reason for choosing Christianity (I was most certainly NOT raised into it) is a compilation of several factors.

1) Jesus flat out tells us that he is the Messiah.  In Islam, granted they acknowledge Christ as a prophet, they also completely disregard that little tidbit. 

2) The prophets of Israel foresaw Jesus' coming, and all of thsoe prophesies were fulfilled by Jesus' coming.  Jews do not think Christ is the Messiah in part because that means they ignored the prophets, and then killed them.  Accepting him as savior would mean admitting they were wrong.

3) To me, Christianity just feels.... right.

Not sure if any of this had any real bearing on the topic we were discussing, but you did pose a question.

[General Battuta]

Sounds fishy to me! I bet a Jew, Muslim, or Hindu could find the same problems with Christianity.

And it feels right because you were raised that way, you silly boggart. Same reason wearing T-shirts but not elaborate hosiery feels right.

[Scotty]

*snip*

And it feels right because you were raised that way

I'm 17 right now.  I became a Christian at age 14.  Until then, no exposure to it, except for about 3 months when I was 6 that didn't end so well.  If you call that raised that way, go ahead, but I don't.

[General Battuta]

You were raised in a Protestant-centric culture where the prototypical religion that permeates the culture and its references is Christianity.

We don't say 'God is great' or make many references to Abraham, after all.

[colecampbell666]

How come the church can change their views and beliefs? Last I checked the fiery inferno was what had been taught for centuries.

To paraphrase Revelation 20:11-15 (the passage that the fery inferno is explained in):

The dead will stand before the throne to be judged.  The book of life is opened, and those gathered will be judged on what they have done.  For any whose name is not written in the book of life, he will be cast in to the lake of fire.

However, the lake is not explained in any great detail.  It could be assumed that the lake of fire is the fiery inferno you reference (probable in fact).  Reading farther into Revelation (21:27), it is said that nothing impure would be allowed to enter His temple, and it specifically references the book of life again.  This, to me, indicates that those who have been cast into the lake of fire are separate from Him.  No real view changing there.

The first part makes perfect sense. A lake of fire is, after all, a lake of fire. The second part is just trying to convolute things, a red herring.

Speaking of changing, what ever happened to the Earth being flat? What about the stars being holes in the sky?

Ask a scientist.  That's not the domain of religion.  As far as I have read, the Bible doesn't come out and say that the Earth is flat, or stars being holes in the sky.

It doesn't say that in the bible, but it was taught by the church right up until a little after 1492. Funny how religion keeps conceding to science, innit?

The main problem I have with "god" is that he assumes me to be an imbecile. If he is omnipotent, surely he must be able to see that rational thinking is of benefit to advancement both socially and technologically, surely? Why doesn't he show undeniable proof rather than a convoluted old textbook and a few nutjobs?

That would be because, comparatively, you are.  As am I.  Out of curiosity, what passage/facet/phrase gives you that idea?  Yes, He is omnipotent.  However, the advancement of humanity socially and technologically is not part of His plan.  Lastly, because faith is a large part of His plan.  He doesn't want to force people to worship Him, He wants people to choose to because of their own beliefs and convictions.

What gives me the idea? Could be the fact that all (Abrahamic at least) religions discourage any critical thinking whatsoever, and encourage blind belief. Wouldn't such a powerful figure want people to be able to think and use the brains given to them? Why doesn't he show more proof? Wouldn't he want people to follow him based on sanity, rather than shaky evidence and blind belief? 'Nother question, if he's omnipotent, how does he judge? He knew that everything was going to happen as it has happened, having a reaction to events would contradict the bible, there's one right there. I thought god's plan was all-encompassing? Wouldn't advancement be part of his plan? Wouldn't he want his creations to live in comfort? And about the last part, how am I supposed to find a reason to believe a mashup old book that was written hundreds of years after some Jewish guy's death?

On a side note, the Bible isn't that convoluted.  It makes sense, does not contradict itself, and lays down his plan.  Secondly, the prophets and Jesus weren't all nutjobs.

if he's omnipotent, how does he judge? He knew that everyhing was going to happen as it has happened, having a reaction to events would contradict the bible, there's one right there. And on the second part, debatable.

I'm not in the presence of god currently (which you will debate), and I feel fine.

You are correct, I will debate that point.  You are in the presence of God.  Whether you choose to acknowledge that or not is your own perogative.

So how am I supposed to tell? Wait... I'm feeling something. Hold on... UNGGGHHH... Oh, sorry. Just gas.

If they make you associate god and religion with warm fuzzy feelings, you'll be more likely to stay with them, and they keep their power. This has the side effect of creating defensive fundieds and the like, which I am not tarring you as, although I have to admit you strike me as the type.

That, of course rests on the fact that the church has gained and intends to keep power.  I will grant you that I use "church" in the lowercase for a reason.  Not all (in fact most don't) seek power as the focal point of their existence.  I would dismiss the power arguement off-hand, but it seems to be significant to you.

Do I sound like a defensive fundie to you?

So how many people would be religious without a church to guide them. Like it or not the church has influenced your decisions, indirectly through others. And the fundie in question is Liberator, you make an attempt to be intelligent, he just blabbers on and straw-mans.

I'm gonna bring some good questions into this, I'd like answers please. Courtesy of the good people of the Rational Response Squad.

God did not create the universe

Our universe was formed via the expansion of a singularity and subsequent formation of structures by hydrogen atoms through gravitational attraction. A magical deity adds nothing to the known explanation.

 

God did not create the solar system or the Earth

Our sun was formed by the particle clouds left behind from previous stars, and our planet (as well as every other planet in the solar system) formed from an accretion disk surrounding our sun.

 

God did not create life on Earth

Life on Earth was formed through a chemical evolutionary process known as 'abiogenesis' (not to be confused with modern evolutionary science, dealing with the propagation of alleles through a population).

 

God did not create homo sapiens

Homo sapiens evolved along the primate branch of the genetic tree. We are simply the 'latest model' of great apes.

 

God did not give us 'souls' or 'free will'

Human beings are conscious and self-aware via their brains. An extra, magical source for our intelligence adds nothing to the known explanation.

 

God has yet to answer a prayer

Under controlled conditions, when a request is made via prayer for something unambiguous, nothing ever happens.

 

God did not provide us with accurate insight into the mechanics the universe he supposedly was somehow involved in erecting

None of the mythological texts supposedly divined into existence by God reflect reality.

 

God did not talk to you last night

You can kid yourself and your choir all you like. We both know it didn't happen.

 

God did not send his Holy Spirit through you

See above.

 

God did not invent morality

Morality was a trait favored by natural selection, as it encourages population growth & stability.

 

 

So then:

What the Hell did God do that is apparently so obvious to you? All of the things traditionally attributed to God are mis-attributions; it's just outright wrong to say that magic was somehow necessary to make the universe, Earth, people, etc. We also both know that you're being dishonest when you claim that a prayer was magically answered or that God manifested for you.

[NGTM-1R]

It doesn't say that in the bible, but it was taught by the church right up until a little after 1492. Funny how religion keeps conceding to science, innit?

I have to correct you on this before you get on to Copernicus and co. and totally blow it. It was common knowledge to everyone, even the church, that the world was round by 1492. They simply didn't believe they were capable logistically of doing what Christoforo Columbo wanted to do, because they were aware of the rough size of the world (which the Greeks calculated). You think he would have gotten support in Spain, in the middle of the friggin' Reconquista, of all places if the church was against him?

[colecampbell666]

It doesn't say that in the bible, but it was taught by the church right up until a little after 1492. Funny how religion keeps conceding to science, innit?

I have to correct you on this before you get on to Copernicus and co. and totally blow it. It was common knowledge to everyone, even the church, that the world was round by 1492. They simply didn't believe they were capable logistically of doing what Christoforo Columbo wanted to do, because they were aware of the rough size of the world (which the Greeks calculated). You think he would have gotten support in Spain, in the middle of the friggin' Reconquista, of all places if the church was against him?

I stand corrected. Popular media has failed me once again. It was still a belief of the church, just at an earlier time, was it not?

[NGTM-1R]

Up until about 1300, yes.

[colecampbell666]

Then my point still holds water.

[General Battuta]

The way a flat Earth wouldn't!

Ba-dum tish.

[colecampbell666]

No.

[Scotty]

I just got off a plane, so I'm gonna keep this short so I can go to sleep (apologies for any unintelligability).

It doesn't say that in the bible, but it was taught by the church right up until a little after 1492. Funny how religion keeps conceding to science, innit?

That first statement confuses me to your point.  You are saying that because the church taught something that wasn't related to the Bible which was later proved false (even earlier proved false, actually), religion is conceding to science?  Just to clarify.

Wouldn't such a powerful figure want people to be able to think and use the brains given to them?

That is why God gave people brains in the first place (or so I believe).  It is also why choosing Him is a choice, and not an automatic obligation.

'Nother question, if he's omnipotent, how does he judge?

Maybe I'm just tired, but can you explain what this means?

Wouldn't advancement be part of his plan?

Bad word choice on my part there.  Advancement of society is not the main focus of His plan, not completely ignored by it.

if he's omnipotent, how does he judge? He knew that everyhing was going to happen as it has happened, having a reaction to events would contradict the bible

   Explain please.

[Not going to put the whole quote in this post]
1)I saw an humorous little quip recently about how religion and science explain the creation of the universe.
Christian explanation:  God created the universe and everything in it.
Scientific explaination:  In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Although, I have to wonder, where did the singularity you speak of come from|?

2) I can actually agree with you here on the means, but not the reason.  The Bible never states HOW God created the Earth and the Solar System, and I am inclined to believe that science has worked out the basic mechanics.
esis
3)  I expect you to belive that an omnipotent diety created life on Earth, and you expect me to believe that Earth developed its own life in what can only be described as the least likely lotou on the basic premtery win in existence.

4)  I believe that in at least one other thread I have stated how I believe that God can use evolution as one of His tools.  Therefore, I will actually agree with you on this point.  However, I still do, and will, hold the opinion that God played a role in our creation, even if through evolution.

EDIT: stupid laptop posted when I tried to put some space between lines.  I'll continue tomorrow.

[General Battuta]

Please, please, don't try to use the fact that science doesn't know everything as evidence for religion.

In any case your ideas about the big bang are outdated. Go read about brane theory.

[Scotty]

A quick google comes up with something having to do with 5-dimensional membranes colliding to create the universe.

Excuse me if I treat that even more skeptically than the big-bang.

[General Battuta]

Excuse me if I don't give a **** what you think until you can work out a tensor. Take a few years of college physics and cosmology, go to grad school, learn higher-order math, spend some time in a particle accelerator, and then let me know your feelings on brane theory. (You'd still find plenty of detractors but you'd have a scientific basis to critique it on and competing theories to advance.)

Seriously, you can't drop into an 'I DON'T BELIEVE WHAT I CAN'T SEE' attitude when your own viewpoint is that an invisible God exists.

As long as it's a theory that makes testable predictions you need to recognize it. And the fact is that we can look up in the sky and see the Big Bang. We know something huge happened.

All that said, it's one of several competing theories as to the Big Bang. And even with science there are those who advocate non-Big-Bang origin theories.