To discuss faith in scientific terms is as irrelevant as discussing love in logical terms.

Picking apart the logic of words in the Bible - or any other religious document, for that matter - is an age-old sport. And it often tends to assume that the majority of ''believers'' (at least, Christian ones) are creationists and people who put aside all their personal beliefs for those preached from pulpits. In fact, the opposite is usually true.

It''s why people can overlook the obvious historical and more recent failings of their organized religions; they''re faith isn''t defined by words on pages nor what''s preached to them nor by church doctrine of any kind. It''s in their hearts, not their minds.

To those who build a strong case against Moses parting a sea or an ark floating the flooded earth for 40 days with two of every beast, I can only say, ''And your point is...?''

As Ken Wilber and other gurus claim, taking the Bible literally and engaging in nitpicky arguments against the veracity of certain "historical" events in the Old or New Testaments is not the point of spirituality. Educational specialist Parker Palmer defines spirituality as "the eternal human yearning to be connected with something that is greater than our own egos." This connection certainly needn''t be with organized religion...

An interesting title to this thread! I suppose I would consider myself an atheist if the definition of a theist is someone who ascribes to the patriarchal model of an old dude with a flowing white beard who is watching our every move to see whether we are naughty or nice! :>

The Bee is right on. You may enjoy reading CS Lewis''s space trilogy - the Third book is all about the clash of Faith in God and Faith in Man (Science & Technology in this case).

This IS an interesting thread.

I think that attacking the bible from a literalist perspective almost is as absurd as taking the bible literally to begin with.

The classic example is the whole creation story.

Clearly the world was not created 168 hours. And since it's so easy to debunk this point, many will use this as "proof" that everything else in the bible is bunk.

But a more hermeneutical interpretation of the bible provides some different perspectives.

The bible didn't just come out of nowhere. It was written at a point in time, for an audience, in a particular social and historical context, for a purpose.

It was written to explain some very esoteric notions to people who were in living in particular time who would have had particular views and basic knowledge of the nature of reality.

So, if we go back to the whole creation story, how would you, living in the "olden days" have described the notion of a quantum singularity, the gradual pull of gravitation from particles, etc, etc, that gradually resulted in the creation of our world?

Well, you'd probably use metaphors - something they could relate to, wouldn't you? Which is what they did. They broke the process down into stages, or days, in this case.

The flaw in the scientific perspective is that they take exception with the metaphors and not the CONTENT. The TRUTH is not that God created the world in a standard work week, but that the universe came from him.

I don't believe that there's a guy who looks like Ted Nugent sitting on a cloud surrounded by birds and squirrels looking down on us, but I do believe in God, which is what it's all about, isn't it?

So when someone tells me that they have proof that there are no people living the clouds, I tell them congratulations, and, like the previous poster, ask them "And your point is....".

I think that the point is that, if the bible isn't literally true, what is the point of it? Do you read it as metaphor for truth, and get your morals from it? That is a terrible idea, anyone how lived their life by what the bible actually says would be evil, by today's standards at least. Or do you read it for the stories. They are good stories, but if you admit that is all they are, then where is God?

numpty We walk by faith, anyone who lives by the law will also perish by the law. You would not know it was sin, if the commandment "Thou shalt not covet or steal, murder, had not come. But sin works through the laws. It is by faith in Christ Jesus who fulfilled the law, we can be saved from all the scientific facts, who by the way are also humans subject to the same laws of sin.

I find that Dawkins and crowd are a lot more evangelical about their point of view than most Christians are about ours.

The scientific method works fantastically for base concepts. Once you leave the basics and start into higher level science ... the scientific method doesn't work too good any more. Yet, Dawkins and crowd seem to demand that "this" is the only way to see things. Bah!

Richard Dawkins comes off as a pretty arrogant guy, for sure. His book, "The God Delusion", and its accompanying BBC documentary "The Root of All Evil?" (though to be fair, Dawkins fought hard for the title to be less incendiary) makes some good points about the dangers of letting "faith" cloud one's judgement, though. I find myself in agreement with him regarding many aspects of religion.

Dawkins makes excellent points regarding the concept of evolution and some religions' refusal to consider it a viable (and VERY convincing) theory. He questions and examines the growing tide of blind faith and fundamentalism that can be seen in the United States, and indeed, around the world. He also makes some interesting comments about "moderate" Christians.

Where Dawkins goes wrong, however, is in suggesting that "faith in God", or "faith" as a concept in general, is the same as "blind faith in religion". I think Dawkins simplifies the concept of "faith" - the sort which is shared by all kinds of religious fundamentalism - instead of exploring it further.

Bertrand Russell makes some interesting comments about the relationship between science and religion in his introduction to "The History of Western Philosophy". He paints science as analytic and literal, and religion as dogmatic and fierce. Between the two, he claims, sits philosophy.

This makes much sense; philosophy has the ability to consider the ramifications of both science and religion; is questions religious dogmatism, and the idea of "blind faith", and holds scientists back from claiming their work to be the only "objective" truth. This is, I think, what Mr. Dawkins needs to consider when talking of science as the be-all-and-end-all of worldly knowledge.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that in Judaic tradition one is encouraged to question the writings to gain better understanding.

Debate is always healthy. By looking at everything that is said the individual can make their own conclusions and they will be stronger for it.

Considering men having been debating both the new and old testaments for over 2 thousand years, including far greater minds than Dawkins, I doubt very much it will now result in the end of faith or religion.

Couldn't agree more Ib
Someone is always trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to the Bible.
I just take the best and leave the rest.
There will always be those who believe in a
-literal 6 days or 6 time periods.
-worship on Saturday or Sunday
-1 cup or many cups
-communion every Sunday or once a month
-mandatory tithing or free will offering
-choir or no choir
-acapella or musical instruments
-saying reverend or just Mr.
-to say Father or not
-formal confession or not
-women ministers or not
-head gear or not
-gowns or not
-to dance or not to dance
-to drink or not to drink
-baptism as a baby or when old enough to reason
-to speak in tongues or not
-attend weekly service or not
I could go on but you get the picture
I'm sure God is getting a great chuckle over our confusion
The most important thing to my way of thinking is deciding what God is telling us is mandatory for our salavation.
blessed be

I Wonder Why atheists come to Christian web sites such as this?

door57: I wonder why homophobic bigots come to Christian web sites such as this.

I wonder why screwed-up people of any sort come to web sites like this? In my case, it's because Im always looking to get more unscrewed. But to get back to the atheism / scientism thing: Interesting that Spindoctor touches on quantum theory and particle physics. Could it be that the apparent randomness and unpredictability of quantum particles is because this is the level at which spirit (or mind, if you like) acts upon matter? Science and religion need not be mutually exclusive.

The trouble with not believing in God is that some people start thinking they are a god. Maybe his is what has happened to Dawkins.

God is dead. - Nietzsche.
Nietzsche is dead. - God

rons is dead. - klaatu

sylviac: "You would not know it was sin, if the commandment "Thou shalt not covet or steal, murder, had not come. "

The laws in the 10 Commandments are not unique, similar laws exist(ed) in many other cultures and other religions.

Siksay: " Richard Dawkins comes off as a pretty arrogant guy, for sure."

I saw him interviewed on The Colbert Report and he didn't seem to me to be arrogant.

I find Ted Haggard to be arrogant. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have turned arrogance into an art form.

jw: "I find that Dawkins and crowd are a lot more evangelical about their point of view than most Christians are about ours. "

How many atheists evangelize on their own weekly television shows? How many atheists evangelize on their own satellite network? How many atheists evangelize from the pulpits of superchurches?

How many Christians evangelize on their own weekly television shows? How many Christians evangelize on their own satellite network? How many Christians evangelize from the pulpits of superchurches?

atheists evangelize their ideology through a more effective means - through their daily lives. we could learn something from that.

sylviac wrote: "You would not know it was sin, if the commandment "Thou shalt not covet or steal, murder, had not come. "

and itdontmatter wrote:The laws in the 10 Commandments are not unique, similar laws exist(ed) in many other cultures and other religions.

It might be useful to clarify WHICH Ten Commandments we are talking about. sylviac is obviously referring to the commandments in Exodus 20. But Moses in anger destroyed the tablets on which they were written, so the Lord gave him a new set in exodus 34: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest."

Curiously, however, the new commandments don't sound much like the first set. Sure, there is the stuff about not worshiping other gods, and keeping the Sabbath. But there is no prohibition against killing, stealing, or coveting (not to mention adultery or bearing false witness).

Instead, we get such earth-shattering commandments as:

18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.

26 ... Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

So, did murder, adultery, stealing, coveting, and false witness become OK in the interim? Apparently it was more important not to seethe a kid in his mother's milk - must have been a terrible thing, that kid-seething, worse than murder.

Did God change his mind? Or was he getting absent-minded? Or just trying to see if we were paying attention? Apparently, most of us were not, because how many people have noticed this little curiosity?

klaatu; "It might be useful to clarify WHICH Ten Commandments we are talking about. "

I am speaking of the following Commandments:

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

You shall not murder.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

itdontmatter:

Perhaps I should have said which SET of Commandments. My point was that we talk about the "Ten Commandments" without realizing that there were two distinct versions handed down by God in the Book of Exodus, one of which did not include any of the ones you cite.

Reminds me of the scene in Mel Brooks's "History of the World, Part 1" where Mel as Moses comes down from the mountain with the commandments, but drops one of the three tablets:

"All pay heed! The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen (crash) ... Oy! ... TEN, ten commandments for all to obey!"

I had to check this out in my bible, Klaatu! The "kid" referred to is a goat...don't be boiling it in it's mother's milk. I have no particular reason for pointing that out.

I have a lot of ??? on this page (from way back in 1988, when it was important to me). "Six days you should labor, but on the 7th day, you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest". I had pencilled a comment...the boys don't need to see that one!

Thanks, Klaatu...I'll be chuckling for awhile at some of my other questions with exclamation marks. That was a very chatty time, in my journey.

itdon'tmatter,

Hi,

You wrote:

I saw him interviewed on The Colbert Report and he didn't seem to me to be arrogant.

Even Bill O'Reilly looked humble next to Colbert.

Of course Colbert is being a charicature to O'Reilly's character.

So Dawkings would have to be absolutely frothing mad to appear mad in Colbert's presence.

Grace and peace to you.

John

"So can do you do when someone starts obscuring the issue with facts? I'm still working on it."

Hello there.

Myself, I enjoy talking with people who enjoy talking. Who aren't there to be right or to judge unfairly or be mean (bullies are a major turn off).

I've found that everyone is on their own path and has their own ways of thinking about things.

Messr Dawkins strikes me as someone who is doing a smash-up job with showing others how cool science can be and is (always an important job). I find him a tad too bullying with his talk about religion, though. He's a very good rhetorician, good enough that I think he has talked himself into a corner regarding religion. But I think tis good that, over time, he has to teach himself about religion.

One 'strategy' I have learned is not to become too focussed on my beliefs and to realise that they are my beliefs and belong to no one else. And that even if I have something completely explained, I can never truly understand what they are saying; I can only put it in terms of my experience.

I have been on a path that has resulted in the creation of my own religion and some conclusions I have come to:

o That life, religion, isn't about being right or correct, it is about being alive, being passionate;

o That when one finds their bliss, the deep meaning that calls to them, then their life changes;

o That religion cannot be gotten rid of, it is a part of us all;

o That we are all capable of horrible acts, and capable of heavenly acts, and to blame or demonize something for it is to abrogate responsibility;

o A sense of humour is key;

o That even if God/Goddess/The Great Podunk in the Sky never exists, what is important is that the idea exists, and the effect this has on us;

o It is good to talk about things. It helps keep us flexible;

o I grok traditions who believe in the Creator as a mystery, as something to be questioned; I suspect that most traditions are this way but that due to American Protestant Fundamentalism being very loud and having a very large market, their pov gets treated as a baseline toward which the concept of 'God' is viewed;

o American Protestant Fundamentalism, though, is a strange beastie, and can be quite toxic.

Inanna Whimsey,

I like your post so much that I am going to copy it into Word document for keeping around. Love some of your ideas.

InannaWhimsey,

Sounds pretty much like you have your life in balance for yourself.

That's great but if you were wrong would you want to know or are you happy living with your own bliss to your physical end?

Love,
Eli

Klaatu: That is high praise :) All I ask is that you attribute it to me.

Eli: You wrote: "That's great but if you were wrong would you want to know or are you happy living with your own bliss to your physical end?"

I am having trouble understanding what you are meaning here. Could you explain in a bit more detail, please? Thank you :)

InannaWhimsey,

RE: Eli's statement "Sounds pretty much like you have your life in balance for yourself.
That's great but if you were wrong would you want to know or are you happy living with your own bliss to your physical end?"

I would say that Eli is saying you have developed a religion that is good for you but outside the bounds of what Jesus says we need to do for salvation.

If your religion , in the end, won't give you what Jesus' way will, wouldn't you want to know it or would you still choose your current method of comfortable religion?

Forgive me Eli, I wasn't answering for you but simply giving my take on it.

Be Blessed,
IB

"If your religion , in the end, won't give you what Jesus' way will, wouldn't you want to know it or would you still choose your current method of comfortable religion?"

That sounds like a weasel worded judgment to me. Can't you just accept the fact that many people do not believe the same way that you do?

IB,

I would ask how would we know one way or the other. I don't mean "know" in the sense of having great assurance based on your own set of beliefs, but really KNOW for certain. I would submit that we can't, until we die, and maybe not even then.

Remember the Garth Borrks song, "The Dance?" Went something like:

"And I, I'm glad I didn't know
The way it all would end,
The way it all would go ... "

The song was about a relationship, but it could be about life as well. Knowing would spoil the Dance.

Klaatu,

RE:"I would ask how would we know one way or the other. I don't mean "know" in the sense of having great assurance based on your own set of beliefs, but really KNOW for certain. I would submit that we can't, until we die, and maybe not even then."
-----------------------

Well, all I've ever tried to do on this site is get folks to try my experience. I have never told anyone what to do or how to live their lives even though many have attacked me claiming I was.

I'm real sorry it came across that way as I am a very gentle evangelist. Some Christians and non-Christians are surpised I am a Christian when I tell them.

I might throw out one phrase in a conversation to a non-Christian friend and if he isn't interested in continuing on that phrase then I don't bring it back in until sometimes a year or so later. A phrase might be something like: "I'm sure glad I had my faith to carry me through that mess!"

I believe that it's not up to me to force anyone to God. He calls everyone at their own speed. The bible tells me that too. I can quote the verses that say it.

My job is to point them in His direction and He will do the rest if they are willing. There's that darn "freewill" thing again that gets all of us in trouble sometimes. Happens to me every day in so many ways.

This is not a belief for me. It's not something I studied about or was trained by someone.

I can't prove it to anyone by physical evidence other then the fact of friends of mine who have known me all my life and see a different yet the same person.

This was something that happened to me and there was an immediate change inside. I'm not a religious nut who runs around preaching to everyone, even though it may seem like it on this site to some.

After the change, when I started reading scripture, I started seeing things that were very true to my experience. The scripture spoke differently to me.

So, in response to your question, no one can know until they have experienced it.
They can't experience it until they try it.
They can't try it unless they are sincere in their asking.
It's not some magic of mumbling some pre-printed words and bang you are into some secret club with mystical powers.
It's a sincere request to God to show himself to you.

Once this has happened, you will try and keep it to yourself but you can't because you want to share it. It's like finding a cure for every disease in the world and you want everyone to have it.

I really KNOW and I run into thousands of others that, when we compare, had the exact same experience. Hence the same path.

Now I had a NDE/OBE that answered a lot of my questions but that was 10 years after my conversion. My faith was strong but I had a lot of the same questions I see on this site.

Took me a month before I even told my wife. I documented the whole thing or as much as I could remember as a lot of it started leaving my mind as I was writing. It's not something that I share with very many. Maybe a dozen so far.

For some reason I have run into others who had a different but similar experience and the things in each of our internal videos were the same and nothing on earth can explain them.

When I read John's desciption of Heaven, I know that he is using crystal, pearl and gold because there is nothing else on earth that comes close to describing what he saw. So it would be impossible for him to try and describe all the new colours and emotions.

So I have proof for me but I can't show it to anyone else unless I had a video of it all. It's also not all visual as their are all kinds of internal energy type things but again how do I show it to you.

One question that had bothered me for a long time was one I see on this site so often about how will so many in the world (past and present) know about Jesus and have the chance to choose. It was shown to me that everyone will have that opportunity but again it is hard to show or define.

That's what faith is all about. Hebrews 11:1 says: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

That's why I am so persistant in posting scripture because it is true to my experience.

I am finding out real quick that most won't understand until they are walking in my shoes but there are many who don't post and wondermail me with the same experiences.

They are grateful for the scripture posts because we are on the same journey but the scriptures help us to grow and understand more of what we are feeling.

Someone said that the scriptures are like an onion once you have this Spirit move inside you. Everytime you peel off a layer there is more underneath.
I'm finding that. I can read a scripture today that I have read a dozen times over the last few years and - bang - I get a whole additional message from it.

Have you ever found that with a movie. I remember years ago when Airplane came out. My friend had it on a video disk and everytime we watched it there was something so funny that we had missed the first time.

It's the same with scripture. It may be because you have learned more of the history and bible stories aroung it and throughout the bible but it's also something very mysterious.

So as to your last sentence, we can know before we die but many won't know until then.

Sorry for the long post. I should have mailed this to you to read at your own leisure.

So my Dear friend Klaatu, I really want you to be blessed,
IB

IB,

As you probably know by now, I responded to your Wondermailing of this post by return Wondermail. I won't repeat the whole thing here, but just wanted to pay my respects to your posting by acknowledging it publicly and stating for everyone's benefit that my original post was not meant to denigrate your personal beliefs, in case it might have read that way.

Your beliefs are obviously heartfelt and hard-earned. Mine are very different. 'Nuff said on that. Thanks for sharing your experience.

I don't want to experience a brush with death, but I would dearly love to know what an NDE/OBE is like, beyond just reading about them.

Blessings to you in return ..

Your friend,

klaatu

IBelieve, I agree that you are a gentle evangelist and not a religious nut. It's lovely to read scripture that is posted as pure, heartfelt love...rather than fear-based and self-righteous. It occurs to me, that I've never said that to you.

I would also add that you are incredibly funny...also much appreciated!

You don't know me, so I will understand if you do not want to share an experience, that probably feels diminished in it's sharing....still, I would love to hear it if you are open to wondermailing it to me. Bless your gentle heart, either way! Penny.

Klaatu,

RE:"my original post was not meant to denigrate your personal beliefs, in case it might have read that way."

Not at all klaatu. Didn't take it that way at all.

To quote my Italian friends "Donju woooory"

I was honestly trying to answer your question:---"I would ask how would we know one way or the other. I don't mean "know" in the sense of having great assurance based on your own set of beliefs, but really KNOW for certain."

So this is my answer from my experience. Not a belief but an experience and just my answer. I got a little detailed into my life experience but I was also trying to answer another Poster whom I also wondermailed the post to.

I was hoping you would be blessed by my experience and praying that you will experience it too someday.

A beat up earthly heart with a brand new insert,
IB

abpenny,

Thanks for your kind response. Remind me to cook you up a big meal of fresh Walleye.

We catch them right out in front of my house.

I can almost see you drooling right now.

I would gladly share my experience with you and everybody but it's impossible to do a readers digest version and really needs to be done face to face with lots of time. Even then it doesn't do it justice as there is nothing to compare it to to be able to create the vision in another's mind.

Be blessed with all God's love,
IB

I'm not just drooling, I could knock you right off your "perch" for breakin' my heart!

I do understand what you are saying about your experience, and we could sure have a good chat in a fishing boat...on a lazy river. C'mon summer!

Yeah, I'm with you on that.

Once the warm is here I go non stop from sunup to sundown. Shorts and barefeet and I'm livin'.

I drop 10 pounds the first two weeks of spring just from more activity.

My time of the year. Boy this has been a long cold spell.

IB

I bet you'd like this story
_____________________

An old, immigrant Italian man lived alone in the country.

He wanted to dig his tomato garden, but it was very difficult work as the ground was extremely hard and dry.

His only son, Vincent, who used to help him, was in prison.

The old man wrote a letter to his son and described his predicament.

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

Dear Vincent,

I am feeling pretty bad because it looks like I won't be able to plant my tomato garden this year. The ground is very hard and I'm just getting too old to be digging a garden.

If you were here my troubles would be over. I know you would dig the garden for me.

Love,

Papa

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

A few days later he received a letter from his son.

Dear Papa,

Please don't even go near the garden. That's where I buried the bodies.

Love,

Vincent

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

At 4:00am the next morning, FBI agents and local police arrived and dug up the entire area, but no bodies were found.

They apologized to the old man and left.

Later that day the old man received another letter from his son.

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

Dear Papa,

Go ahead and plant the tomatoes now.

That's the best I could do under the circumstances.

Love,

Vincent

Hello there IBelieve. Thank you for the attempt at translation :)

This is what I am replying to: "I would say that Eli is saying you have developed a religion that is good for you but outside the bounds of what Jesus says we need to do for salvation.

If your religion, in the end, won't give you what Jesus' way will, wouldn't you want to know it or would you still choose your current method of comfortable religion?"

Well, I don't know exactly what you are saying here. I can guess, and, well, there are a lot of assumptions here. So much meat you have provided for more riffs. I thank you.

1. How do you know I'm not down with the Jesus? And who are you to assume so?

2. Why is Jesus important here? I mean, I also could not be following Krisna, or Coyote, or Mithras, and be subject to the effects of not following them as well. There are a whole lot of religions in the world. Someone's interpretation of Christianity is only a small, small portion of it.

3. I believe I can still act with helping others, helping the poor, treating others as I would treat myself, and not judging others, and not believe Jesus to be the son of God and still be a good person. Brilliant man. He made a philosophy that was so simple: keep on loving others and do not judge. Simple. And pervasive.

To believe in something due to fear of something (or anxiety) not happening is not my idea of a good belief. Charlie Parker didn't play his horn because he was afeared of not playing it.

Also, I have learned that, while I could die tomorrow, being hit by a bus or something, tis not worth it to worry about it.

Namaste.

Innana Whimsey: I had a much different take on Eli's comment. I did not read any of the judgement stuff into it. I thought he meant is it enough for you to be happy as you are or would you rather learn if you were wrong, whatever that might mean. I occasionally get to watch people, usually children, playing a game wrong but enjoying it immensely. Since the purpose of a game is to have fun, it would be wrong to interrupt their pleasure by pointing out that they are not playing the game the way it is meant to be played. I took Eli's comment in the same vein. If there was a right way to play your game of life, would you want to know, or would you rather play it the way you are with the rewards it is bringing you?

IannaWhimsey, you hit the nail on the head by pointing out that you can be a good person without needing to fear punishment from a God. i find it contemtible that one is told to believe that humans need to fear God in order to be decent people. even more so when i'm told this by believers. it's a revealing answer, because they're admitting that they do good only because they're under some sort of ecclessial surveillance camera. on the other hand, most atheists i know are decent, moral people who've never really needed a punishing God to be such. on the other hand, a belief in the after-life has had the effect of turning otherwise moral, sensible people into complete pricks!

Numpty, by mentioning dawkins, you just made my day! preach it brother!!!

Jimbo59 wrote on Tue, Mar 06/07: "I had a much different take on Eli's comment. I did not read any of the judgement stuff into it. I thought he meant is it enough for you to be happy as you are or would you rather learn if you were wrong, whatever that might mean. I occasionally get to watch people, usually children, playing a game wrong but enjoying it immensely. Since the purpose of a game is to have fun, it would be wrong to interrupt their pleasure by pointing out that they are not playing the game the way it is meant to be played. I took Eli's comment in the same vein. If there was a right way to play your game of life, would you want to know, or would you rather play it the way you are with the rewards it is bringing you?"

Good questions, there :)

(I'm afraid we've strayed so off topic in this thread...sorry, numpty. Accept this flower in apology :)

I wasn't sure what Eli was meaning; it wasn't totally clear to me, so I went with some assumptions of mine.

What I would say in answer to your good words (and I am treating them as rhetorical, but I am coming up with answers, anyway) is:

o Who determines what the rules of the game are?

o Who determines what is right and what is wrong?

o If someone is playing the game wrong, how wrong is that?

o Does one believe in something because it benefits you or because you are responsible for the consequences of not believing in it? Or?

o Is it possible that there are multiple games, multiple faiths, where all are true, in some sense, or in the literal sense?

o What is the purpose of a game? Are there other purposes? Do games have to have a purpose?

o Why do we believe something? How do we believe something?

Plus, when Eli wrote "That's great but if you were wrong would you want to know or are you happy living with your own bliss to your physical end?" that caused one of my buzzers to go off, because, for me, that confines the question to just two values, which isn't robust enough for how the world really is (or how my belief structure is). His sentence there twigged my 'that is a judgment' buzzer :) Which I realize is me, because everything I read is me in the words.

Things to think aboot, indeed :)

r_dawkins_jr wrote on Mon, Mar 12/07: "you hit the nail on the head by pointing out that you can be a good person without needing to fear punishment from a God. i find it contemtible that one is told to believe that humans need to fear God in order to be decent people. even more so when i'm told this by believers. it's a revealing answer, because they're admitting that they do good only because they're under some sort of ecclessial surveillance camera. on the other hand, most atheists i know are decent, moral people who've never really needed a punishing God to be such. on the other hand, a belief in the after-life has had the effect of turning otherwise moral, sensible people into complete pricks!"

I was just trying to point out my personal beliefs and one of them is that I do things not because I am afraid of the consequences but because I believe. There are many, many different religions out there and I'm enough of an agnostic-thinker to realize that one of them can't be true, ultimately, but they can be all true (and that is a trip :). The trick for me is to find out just 'how' they can be true. And I do realize the importance of religions and that each on, each person has their own interpretation as to why they do the things they do.

I remember reading an anecdote about some Tibetan Buddhist monks (where as part of their religion they didn't eat meat) who were working in a particularly poor portion of Tibet and an anthropologist met up with them and found out that they ate meat sometimes. He was flabbergasted, and asked them aren't they going to the Buddhist equivalent of Hell? The monks answered him that they have to eat meat occasionally because they wouldn't survive otherwise and so are willing to take on taint to continue serving the town.

In my experience, having faith doesn't automatically make one a 'good person'--that isn't its 'function'. I've met some really nifty Christians, some really silly ones, some really nifty Atheists, some really silly ones, etc. I find I have to get to know them personally and still, after I've gotten to know them, to realize that my beliefs are different from theirs, that there can only be an approximation of understanding.

I think that the USA has been unique in the world in that its version of Christianity is quite...unique. It formed in a very conservative country, in a time when the power of imagination was in its wane, so that there are people out there who believe literally and don't question. That's sad, but it is their path. I think that, as time goes on, that this version of Christianity is going to change (heck, I have already seen it change) and get a bit more imaginative and loose and creative, with less obsessional focus on being right and making money, and more on service* and getting to know oneself and others.

That's my hope, anyway :)

* and more of an acceptance of ambiguity and not-knowing. A faith that doesn't question isn't a strong faith, to me. One of the things I like about what I see of robust science and religion--people accepting that there is a whole lot they don't know, but pressing on, regardless.

"So can do you do when someone starts obscuring the issue with facts? "

Oh, that's funny, thanks for lifting my spirits today.

I read a great Dawkins quote:

"If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr's death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisaical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naive and frustrated young men are clamoring to be selected for suicide missions?"

There are tons of books out that are rational, logical, empirical, scientific and theological that address all of Dawkins rants.

One such book is David Ray Griffin Two Great Truths or Ian Barbour's books on science and religion. Ian is a physicist and theologian - Harper Row is his publisher and David's book is from Westminster press

On the web there are many sites that use both scientific thinking and theological thinking - John Haught is another person to read.

I am just as bothered by those religious people who think one cannot use the same method of argument to defend the faith as those who attack it. To pled special thinking or privileged for relgious views is to give the idea away.

Reading about all this religion that man has formed since he appeared on this earth and developed ever bigger brain cells ;Is there a gene that predeposses him to this perdicament:Also asks the question,why does he or she continue
to want to have an afterlife when all the evidence around is believed to have only one life,it must be we are just not that intelligent enough yet to understand
ourslves;or want to think we know more than the next guy;surely any God as such
would not favor us over any other creature,when he can create new life all the time;and using the same elements over and over;
Come to think thu belief in a spirirtualism,might help us get thru the rough times
in our lives from time to time,but lets not make it a holy fact with all kinds of rules; &[ worst ] worship a man; Cheers Eric

The first step is to realize that their "facts" are actually lies cleverly created by Satan and his followers.

Some people might find creation in 6 days hard to believe, but it's not nearly as hard to believe as noxious chemicals springing to life and eventually changing from a fish to a monkey all on their own.

I'm looking forward to reading this book The God Delusion. I read the Bible and it's not for me. I am looking for another point of view.