South Park?

 
 
  Thanks for giving me your perspective on Atheists Strummy.
 
 I think both sides Christian and Atheist use the same argument, basically that we aren't what you think we are. In some cases this is really true, in others it isn't. In some cases one side is trying to paint a picture of the other side that doesn't exist. If it happens to be Christianity we are talking about then IMO it comes down to a personal experience as well as a knowledge based approach. I mean, 8 year old kids can successfully become Christian with no prior knowledge of scripture and be just as Christian as a theologian. They might not be old enough to know what a Methodist or a Baptist is but that doesn't matter. The basic premise behind the belief and the acceptance therof is all that is required. I am glad it is this way. What if only gifted scientists could get there? 
 
  We agree on a few things, mainly that religion in and of itself can be a bad thing,although I think the atheist says it is always a bad thing and I would say that if directed correctly it isn't a bad thing. I don't see any harm in science. As some have said, science is the pillar with which we have made things better for millions of people. I see a trend for that to continue...I mean we now have Sonar X3, how cool is that ? Computer science, medical science, nano technology..the list goes on. 
 
 The thing about science though is that it is supposedly based on empirical evidence, but the empirical evidence can change over time as Ol Pal said science is a moving scale of sorts and what is empirical today might not be empirical tomorrow. I would say that if the purpose of science is to further mankind intellectually and if that is all we need then it could concievably replace the belief in a god if that were the only motive and agenda of mankind. The idea being that if we eventually become smart enough we won't need a god and god will effectively be replaced. This assumption is based on the idea that  god is a smart person and we can become that smart eventually, and that the only reason we would ever need a god is for knowledge and for how it will benefit us.
 
 My world view is much different. In my view we are created beings and will never attain that status. We think we have come far until we start to look at the complexity of even the smallest things in nature. I know what Dawkins says regarding his take on theories. I disagree with his thinking on the subject. It's either proven or its not. A theory is a theory even if there are numerous "empirical" discoveries surrounding a premise. I don't see any "crap science", what I see is the painful reach toward a solution to a problem that might not always be a good fit. These " painful reaches" are then used as  practical explanations when we might not really have one. Both sides of the debate are doing these reaches.
 
   While I agree that many Christians aren't very well trained in the finer points of the Bible ( we talk about 25% of the Bible 95% of the time). This isn't a prerequisite to entry into the faith and as such not all Christians are required to be theologians. Some Christians however ARE very well equipped to answer questions on the Bible but you may not like the answers. This is one reason why I am involved in some Apologetics work. If anyone claims to tell you they know it all I would run far away from them. This applies to Atheists as well. Did you ever notice how many of them seem to have it all figured out? Especially with regard to the Bible. I seldom ever run across one who will even entertain the idea that they might be wrong, even on a few points.
 
 It's a lot like a murder trial where there are two sides approaching the  jury. One side says that the person is a criminal. They have a lot of so called proof to back that idea up. Some  have even argued that the criminal might not exist.A closer look at the "evidence" reveals a very one sided approach to the whole affair. What their "evidence" reveals are taking factual events and putting a spin on them to suit their agenda, which is to discredit the one they put on the stand and therefore make any acceptance of the Bible as a credible book look like only a fool would read and believe it, even though thousands of gifted minds have read, studied and accepted it. The evidence looks compelling because they bring out what sure look like contadictions, improbablitites, impossibilities etc. The lack of contextual approach, lack of logical inclusion of all evidence leads to postions that they think supports their argument.Many rely on the writings of people who have no credibility in the fields they write about. Emphasis on cultic extremes and historical wars supposedly fought in the name of God all seem to paint a picture that the world would have been better off without Christianity.
 
 On the other side we have thousands that can daily attest to the reality of their experiences even though they went into it not knowing a lot about the Bible. We have scientists and theologians that can attest to the same thing from a position of knowledge. They have studied the entire character of God and determined that He is good and just, not cherry picked certain parts of the Bible to try and prove He is cruel and heartless. The complete study reveals a God who is good and who loves. Who doesn't want bad for you in any way shape or form.
 
  I'm probably tempting the TOS here. Sorry if I am. I have a hard time with people who insist the Bible is bunk. I at the very least feel compelled to give another perspective in this....can't let that one slide. 

"Personally" being such a good thing.
 
I know I wouldn't enjoy knowing that I made a room full
of musicians uncomfortable because I was so hungup on
telling the only guitar player in the room everything I believed to be
the truth...the only truth...about how to play a guitar while all the
other musicians wondered what good it was doing me...or the other guitarist.
 
The best I can recall is I never rambled about how to play anything on a guitar...
unless I was asked. Think I'll stay that way.
 
 
 

+1 to Wookies post. So far that has been the only thing for me worth reading so far. Buddhism was probably the best religion, it all went downhill from there. The moment people start killing in the name of religion is the point where religion has gone pear shaped and lost the plot.
 
The good thing about religion is the belief or faith factor. The trick is take that and apply it to one's own mind, the subconscious mind. That is where the real power exists. In your mind. Everything you need for a very happy and fruitful life is within you. You just have to have faith and believe in it that is all.
 
Repetition, Faith and Expectancy!
 
Read the book 'The Power of Your Subconscious Mind' by Joseph Murphy and really find out what it is all about. That is real power.

I thought there was maybe a few dozens but....
 
According to the Pew Research Religion and Public Life Project, there are presently around 41,000 different Christian denominations worldwide.
 
41 000!!! 
 
And that's not counting how every human will interpret information differently - even when give the exact same parameters and explanations of the very same information.
 
This means that whichever christian denomination you belong to, there are 39 999 groups of christians who believe w/ all their alleged undying soul that you and your fellows are doing it wrong to varying degrees from subtle and absolutely unimportant to extreme and that you don't really understand the teachings of Christ.
 
And that's just Christians. No matter which denomination's side your on, 39 999 groups of christian agree will agree w/ atheists and people from every other religion that you are in error.
 
Even better, no matter which denomination of christianity your belong to, whether you like it or not, you actually agree with atheists (and jews and muslims and others) that, to varying degrees, the vast majority (39 999 groups) of christians out there aren't "getting it" or misinterpret the scriptures in one way or another.
 
Suddenly seems like a pretty individualistic way to apprehend the world...
 
 
 

Rain
Not sure about "faith" and all that stuff. At least, not it any "spiritual" sort of way. 
 
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/01January/Pages/Spirituality-link-to-mental-illness.aspx
 
I'm not taking this stuff "religiously" - but I do find it interesting. :)
 
I'm all for a positive attitude though.

Hey Krist, did you see (my) post #91 in this very thread

Yes. :)
 

Mooch4056
 
Faith in Christ  will never be something you could prove or disprove with words.
 

That's the bulk of the problem, Paul. No more than the absence of faith. But the clash originates from the supposed "superiority" in which the believer holds his faith - which acts as its own validation in the eye of the believer.  Your own appreciation of faith is drastically different from that of other christians who've contributed to this thread. And your own appreciation of your faith is what you use to validate your faith.
 
God is real because I believe. I believe because God is real. As tempting as it is to succumb to the seductive power of such ideas, I think that one should defend oneself from something that cheats reason like that - or at least not hold it for a criteria when it come to evaluate a proposition. 
 
No matter what I say to a believer as an atheist, there is always room in my head for doubt, a possibility that I could be mistaken. And I don't have a divine entity to guarantee me beyond any reason that I am right - therefore, my only option is to not hold on blindly to any belief. And if I had an intuition, no matter how persistent and strong, I certainly wouldn't give it precedent over cold hard facts which we all can validate for each other.  If there was a God, I wouldn't feel devastated. It would actually be pretty amazing. I don't hate God, no more than I love or hate the brothers and sisters that I never had. Simple as that. 
 
None of what I say requires any special form of insight to be understood, it is all based on knowledge that everyone is actually invited to question and try to improve. None of it is irrefutable and none of it is to be held for sacred. If you want to believe in God on top of it, fine.
 
But more importantly, it does not require any unique mystical communion with a divinity, which, even if I would not classify as a mental disease, is actually a phenomenon that is strikingly similar to hallucinations, schizophrenia, paranoïa. In all cases, the common frame of reference is bypassed and the experience is solely intelligible to the "victim".
 
Two paranoid individuals may both agree that there is some kind of conspiracy going on (and there is in there mind), it does not validate in anyway any of their imaginary fear. Each one lives an isolated experience.
 
Likewise, the fact that two person experience something which they call "faith" doesn't infer that there is a God. In fact. people of even the most contradictory religions experience "faith" and revelations. Just like people from every culture believe in premonitions, and demons, and ghosts and all that stuff. 
 
Also, the fact that someone did not believe for some time does in no way infer that he wasn't looking for an opportunity to believe on a subconscious level. People can submit themselves to the most complex series of action to reach a goal set by their subconscious. In fact, we all constantly do it.
 
 
 
 

Mooch4056
 
 
There are three of four people that keep on Chiming in on this thread who have made it clear they don't believe. 
 
I always wonder about those people Verses the people who just wave off Christianity and go about their business. Why do some stick around and fight there point of view so hard against it?
 
I wonder... what do they have in them... what is in them that they fight so hard against this to make their point. My guess is .. it's probably something that is great. Something that people in this world really really need and would be good and awesome. They are usually people that can't see the forest through the trees or it's the enemy holding them back. Either way they are usually right on the borderline of being something powerfully awesome in a very good way. 
 
 
Paul 

 
1: That is a totally biased observation - quite a few christians kept coming back to it. 
 
2: Why we react so vehemently? I'll speak for myself:
 
Because YOU felt entitled to bring on the topic of religion despite the TOS. 
 
Because if you give yourself that right, you give me and others a right to disagree - love it or hate it. And the enormity of your declarations certainly justifies 7 pages of thread.
 
Because you think that you get to decide what is and what isn't "religion". 
 
Because, like it or not, if you decide to not respect the TOS, some of us will make sure that you just don't get away with it.
 
Because those arguments are ALWAYS the result of self-entitled religious folks breaking the TOS in the first place. 
 
Because you think you can patronize and mock those who vehemently oppose your religious views and your self-entitlement.
 
Because you're so full of yourself that you actually think that we should just let it slide - in other word, that we should be responsible for YOUR thread not to cause disagreement by not reacting to it. 
 
How messed up is that? You self-righteously break the TOS and when we react you self-righteously get to tell us that we shouldn't make a big deal out of it and to be reasonable.
 
That's not just disregarding the TOS - that's showing a total lack of consideration for others. 
 
What you did is the equivalent of barging into a room, taking a huge dump on the table and then telling us it was no big deal - how you were so awesome that it was actually solid gold that came out of your butt. Anyone offended was wrong.
 
If more people had such a strong self-entitlement as yours, things would have derailed long long ago... I guess that's why it surprises you that it's still going on and you cannot quite figure out "what they have in them"... And I'm afraid you'll never know - but you don't need to. You're too awesome for those technicalities. In fact, you're so awesome that you have God on your side. You don't need to be considerate when God tells you you are right. Heck, there is no bloody thing you can't do with God on your side... 
 
But no matter what you and your God believe - if you don't hold yourself accountable for the TOS, somebody around here most likely will for you. Rightly so, no matter how far above the rules you might consider yourself.

Rain
 
 
 
 
If more people had such a strong self-entitlement as yours, things would have derailed long long ago... I guess that's why it surprises you that it's still going on and you cannot quite figure out "what they have in them"... And I'm afraid you'll never know - but you don't need to. You're too awesome for those technicalities. In fact, you're so awesome that you have God on your side. You don't need to be considerate when God tells you you are right. Heck, there is no bloody thing you can't do with God on your side... 
 
But no matter what you and your God believe - if you don't hold yourself accountable for the TOS, somebody around here most likely will for you. Rightly so, no matter how far above the rules you might consider yourself.

 
I am not entitled to anything. If I got what I deserved I would be spiritual dead. If I got what I was entitled too ... man ..... I don't have the words to describe how horrible things would be if I had what I was entitled to. 
 
But with God.....
 
 
You're right. With God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them intently and said, "With people this is impossible, but with God ALL things are possible."
 
You keep on bringing up the TOS yet participate fully in this discussion. Interesting. 
 
As far as that goes for me. If I have to pick  freely speaking about Christ VS. a TOS...... Christ wins each and every time.
 
In fact when it comes to Law of any country VS Christ.. or any person VS Christ... Or any even  my own life VS Christ ... Christ wins every single time.  I am choosing eternity and truth over world views. I will every time. Christ was brutally  beaten to a pulp and then killed  so I can have eternal life despite my ways. 
 
 
The least I can do is take the lashing of THE ALL MIGHTY TOS.... 
 
Mathew 16:26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?
 
 
The Apostle Paul who wrote most of the New Testament used to MURDER Christians he hated them some much. That's right! The Apostle Paul and a HUGE author of the New testament used to KILL Christians. 
 
Turns out in the end... after the Apostle Paul met Christ in Person..... Paul Changed.  Paul  was beaten and imprisoned many times for preaching the Good News all over the place. 
 
This is the reason of my statement "what do you have in you that is so great" that seemed to have  gotton you in a tizzy there Rain.
 
A Murderer of Christians became one of the biggest advocates of truth the world has ever known.  It's true. 
 
Absolutely an amazing thing. Isn't it?
 
 Yes.. you are correct... With God all things are possible. 
 
 
 
 

Starise
 
 
  Thanks for giving me your perspective on Atheists Strummy.
 
 

 
No problem Tim, I’m just glad this thread hasn’t overtly upset anyone enough to report it. It shows that a civilised discussion is possible on matters and topics considered taboo by most forums not specifically dedicated to them.
 
 

Starise
 
 
 I think both sides Christian and Atheist use the same argument, basically that we aren't what you think we are. In some cases this is really true, in others it isn't. In some cases one side is trying to paint a picture of the other side that doesn't exist. If it happens to be Christianity we are talking about then IMO it comes down to a personal experience as well as a knowledge based approach. I mean, 8 year old kids can successfully become Christian with no prior knowledge of scripture and be just as Christian as a theologian. They might not be old enough to know what a Methodist or a Baptist is but that doesn't matter. The basic premise behind the belief and the acceptance therof is all that is required. I am glad it is this way. What if only gifted scientists could get there? 
 

 
I don’t wish to appear to be jumping on the bandwagon of what ‘Ol Pal said about the cognitive ability of 8 year olds, but it is a salient point. And I do believe you’ve answered your own question a little by wondering why there are no gifted scientists at that age. I’d also add that kids in that age group wouldn’t make very good politicians (though some one argue they couldn’t do much worse than those we already elect) or legislators, or teachers; or any profession or calling that requires little more than brain power as opposed to physical stature.
 
Plus, this all boils down to my previous argument that belief (specifically by minors, but by all age groups in general) is almost inextricably linked to environment, in particular to the beliefs of their parents and immediate family, and to their place of birth.
 
Again, forgive me for quoting from elsewhere, but British philosopher Anthony (‘AC’) Grayling sums it up so succinctly in the first paragraph of his book The God Argument ~ The Case Against Religion And For Humanism:
 
"To put matters at their simplest, the major reason for the continuance of religious belief in a world which might otherwise have long moved beyond it, is indoctrination of children before they reach the age of reason, together with all or some combination of social pressure to conform, social reinforcement of religious institutions and traditions, emotion, and (it has to be said) ignorance - of science, of psychology. of history in general, and of the history and actual doctrines of religions themselves."
 
To add to this, I could possibly agree with your statement to some extent if you’d not specifically mentioned this fictional 8 year old as becoming a “Christian” – without the direct influence of Christian teachings, I would suggest that no 8 year old “can successfully become Christian”. Even if such a child had not been steered in such a way, and allowed to decide whether or not there is a ‘god’ on his own; and if they did feel the need for a deity, was then given a raft of religious literature to peruse, the chances of him choosing to follow Christianity would be pretty low, and of the same probability of all the other options offered him.
 
Leaving all these hypotheticals aside, I strongly believe that 8-year-old kids ought to be doing what 8-year-old kids should be doing, and not having to think about such matters. They will have plenty of time for that when they grow up
 
In my opinion, to actually force one’s belief system on them at this age should be considered an act of gross irresponsibility at best, and tantamount to mental abuse at worse.
 
To conclude, I’d advocate letting them grow up first, and then let them choose. This will probably never happen of course, because I’d suggest that if it did, (specifically ‘organised’) religion would wither away and die within a handful of generations. And the churches know it.
 
 

Starise
 
 
 
  We agree on a few things, mainly that religion in and of itself can be a bad thing,although I think the atheist says it is always a bad thing and I would say that if directed correctly it isn't a bad thing. I don't see any harm in science. As some have said, science is the pillar with which we have made things better for millions of people. I see a trend for that to continue...I mean we now have Sonar X3, how cool is that ? Computer science, medical science, nano technology..the list goes on. 
 

 
 
Tim, I agree, to a certain extent. Religious people do a great deal of good in the world, and religions in general do a pretty good job of organising a lot of these good works.
 
But to me, the religious aspect is irrelevant – good people do good things and bad people do bad things; it need be no more complicated than that.
 
Steven Weinberg says it much better than me: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
 
The point being, as I take it, that there are undoubtedly plenty of bad atheists out there, but they don’t do bad things in the name of their atheism.
 
 

Starise
 
  
 The thing about science though is that it is supposedly based on empirical evidence, but the empirical evidence can change over time as Ol Pal said science is a moving scale of sorts and what is empirical today might not be empirical tomorrow. I would say that if the purpose of science is to further mankind intellectually ….
 

 
Nobody ever says that science offers the ‘truth’ about anything. Whatever hypothesis/theorem/theory/Law happens to be current flavour of the month is just that – it’s a best fit of the evidence available. Moreover it is the duty of the scientist to attempt to falsify any theory – a sort of what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger approach.
 
Where I disagree with you is in your statement that “the empirical evidence can change over time”. As far as we are aware, natural and consistent laws apply across our observable universe. What might change over time, and this is a subtle but important distinction, is the quality of the empirical evidence, and its interpretation.
 
I agree with what you say, “the purpose of science is to further mankind intellectually”. ‘Pure’ science is just part of our inquisitive human nature – it’s why we explore, experiment and philosophise.
 
Where a lot of the negative things said about ‘science’ come from is that often the distinction between science and ‘business’ (or business ethics) becomes blurred. And this misunderstanding is often deliberately pushed to the fore by those groups with a particular agenda – both religious and non-religious. Undoubtedly, the areas of ‘pure’ science-for-science’s-sake are shrinking as ‘applied’ science has superseded it. Commercialism is now linked hand in hand with scientific research, which ultimately needs to produce an end product, a new commodity if you like, rather than just an advance of intellectual content.
 
If you’ve never read it, I can heartily recommend (Dr) Ben Goldacre’s excellent and revealing book Bad Science (Amazon US | UK).
 

Starise
 
  
…. and if that is all we need then it could concievably replace the belief in a god if that were the only motive and agenda of mankind. The idea being that if we eventually become smart enough we won't need a god and god will effectively be replaced. This assumption is based on the idea that  god is a smart person and we can become that smart eventually, and that the only reason we would ever need a god is for knowledge and for how it will benefit us.
 

 
I’d argue, and have done elsewhere in this thread, that advances in science have already eradicated the need for belief in an interventionist supernatural; and that as further advances chip away at what is still unknown (yet explained by holy books) this need will become further lessened.
 
 
 
 
 

Starise
 
 
 
 My world view is much different. In my view we are created beings and will never attain that status. We think we have come far until we start to look at the complexity of even the smallest things in nature. I know what Dawkins says regarding his take on theories. I disagree with his thinking on the subject. It's either proven or its not. A theory is a theory even if there are numerous "empirical" discoveries surrounding a premise. I don't see any "crap science", what I see is the painful reach toward a solution to a problem that might not always be a good fit. These " painful reaches" are then used as  practical explanations when we might not really have one. Both sides of the debate are doing these reaches.
 

 
Just as a matter of semantics Tim, can you explain what you mean by “we are created beings”?
 
Before I can address this point specifically, would you please be good enough to say whether you mean ‘created’ as per the literal description outlined in Genesis (i.e. “Young Earth”); or in a more general way, as in you accept big bang theory/evolution etc but believe that mankind’s existence in it is an intended part of these processes, albeit that god was the initiator of these events (i.e. “Old Earth”).
 
As to what constitutes a theory (I’m assuming you mean ‘scientific’ theory?), then I’m afraid this is another matter of deliberate misuse of semantics, or possibly genuine ignorance. I can do little more than repeat part of (my) post #149 in response to backwoods to clarify the difference:
 

SteveStrummerUK
 
Firstly, you bandy around the word “theory” a lot. I might be wrong here, but I get the distinct feeling, that like a lot of believers, you’re not really aware of the correct definition of a “scientific theory” (I’ve added the word ‘scientific’ to clarify my point, but from the context in which you use the word ‘theory’ above, I’m pretty sure that’s what you meant?) – either that or it’s a deliberate (and often used) ploy to suggest that a theory is little more than an ‘idea’ or ‘hunch’.
 
A scientific theory is much more than that, and I’ll once again beg your forgiveness if I allow someone else to express it better than I ever could (from Wikipedia):
 
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.
 

 
 
 

Starise
 
  
   While I agree that many Christians aren't very well trained in the finer points of the Bible ( we talk about 25% of the Bible 95% of the time). This isn't a prerequisite to entry into the faith and as such not all Christians are required to be theologians. Some Christians however ARE very well equipped to answer questions on the Bible but you may not like the answers. This is one reason why I am involved in some Apologetics work. If anyone claims to tell you they know it all I would run far away from them. This applies to Atheists as well. Did you ever notice how many of them seem to have it all figured out? Especially with regard to the Bible. I seldom ever run across one who will even entertain the idea that they might be wrong, even on a few points.
  

 
I see this as a problem for religion, specifically in this case for (as you mention it) Christianity.
 
The reason being is that the whole thing comes down to interpretation. Which parts does one act upon literally, and which parts to view metaphorically. As Krist (Rain) argues elsewhere (are far more eloquently than I), this necessity to interpret one’s holy book can prove very dangerous in certain circumstances.
 
My obviously naïve opinion on the matter is that (for example) the bible (and by that I mean both the New Testament and the Old Testament) is either the perfect word of an omniscient deity or it isn’t. If it is, then everything it says should be actioned upon and believed, it should leave absolutely nothing in need of interpretation.
 
You say that “Some Christians however ARE very well equipped to answer questions on the Bible but you may not like the answers” – I would ask what gives these mere mortals the right to interpret it? Where do they acquire their judgemental skills on these matters?
 
Plus, if mortals are required to interpret the word of god, then god has made a pretty bad job of explaining what he wants to say. And humans, as we know, make a lot of mistakes.
 
 

Starise
 
 
 
 It's a lot like a murder trial where there are two sides approaching the  jury. One side says that the person is a criminal. They have a lot of so called proof to back that idea up. Some  have even argued that the criminal might not exist.A closer look at the "evidence" reveals a very one sided approach to the whole affair. What their "evidence" reveals are taking factual events and putting a spin on them to suit their agenda, which is to discredit the one they put on the stand and therefore make any acceptance of the Bible as a credible book look like only a fool would read and believe it, even though thousands of gifted minds have read, studied and accepted it. The evidence looks compelling because they bring out what sure look like contadictions, improbablitites, impossibilities etc. The lack of contextual approach, lack of logical inclusion of all evidence leads to postions that they think supports their argument.Many rely on the writings of people who have no credibility in the fields they write about. Emphasis on cultic extremes and historical wars supposedly fought in the name of God all seem to paint a picture that the world would have been better off without Christianity.
 
 On the other side we have thousands that can daily attest to the reality of their experiences even though they went into it not knowing a lot about the Bible. We have scientists and theologians that can attest to the same thing from a position of knowledge. They have studied the entire character of God and determined that He is good and just, not cherry picked certain parts of the Bible to try and prove He is cruel and heartless. The complete study reveals a God who is good and who loves. Who doesn't want bad for you in any way shape or form.
 
  I'm probably tempting the TOS here. Sorry if I am. I have a hard time with people who insist the Bible is bunk. I at the very least feel compelled to give another perspective in this....can't let that one slide. 

 
Just because certain people, or any number of people, believe (as a matter of faith) certain things, doesn’t make it any more true.
 
A billion and a half Muslims around the world believe that Mohammed was the last prophet of god, and that Islam, as outlined in the Qur’an and The Hadith show the correct path to reach paradise. Over a billion Hindus don’t even believe in the Abrahamic god, but feel their way of life (and often reincarnation) offers the true path.
 
Tim, I’m guessing you don’t subscribe to either of these views?

 Hi Steve,
 
 Strummy-" I don’t wish to appear to be jumping on the bandwagon of what ‘Ol Pal said about the cognitive ability of 8 year olds, but it is a salient point. And I do believe you’ve answered your own question a little by wondering why there are no gifted scientists at that age. I’d also add that kids in that age group wouldn’t make very good politicians (though some one argue they couldn’t do much worse than those we already elect) or legislators, or teachers; or any profession or calling that requires little more than brain power as opposed to physical stature.
 
Plus, this all boils down to my previous argument that belief (specifically by minors, but by all age groups in general) is almost inextricably linked to environment, in particular to the beliefs of their parents and immediate family, and to their place of birth."
 
 I have a simple question someone. How do I put you in quotes with a name? I seem to be having difficulty with that.One of those things that isn't really jumping right out and biting me.
 
 I'll give you my take on it.  The fact is younger kids are going to absorb no matter where you put them. It's up to the discretion of the parents where they should go. If you want a cf I'll give you one but if you know the book already then you know it says to train up a child in the way they should go and when they are older they won't depart from it. I randomly picked 8 yrs old but I don't think its the same age for all kids. Everyone matures a little differently. It might be 12 or 13 for someone else. For some it might be 52 ;). The book also says that if we don't come to God as little children we don't come to Him at all. I can also cf that if you need it. The idea being that all a person needs to do is to say, I believe you, I know I need help, I trust you to help me. That doesn't require a huge IQ and believe it or not that's all you need to do to accomplish the same thing that some people have taken years to achieve through reasoning and study. Both paths lead to the same place but one path is so much less complicated. Since the end result doesn't require one to be well versed in any science or advanced reasoning the age can be low. 
 
Strummy-"To add to this, I could possibly agree with your statement to some extent if you’d not specifically mentioned this fictional 8 year old as becoming a “Christian” – without the direct influence of Christian teachings, I would suggest that no 8 year old “can successfully become Christian”. Even if such a child had not been steered in such a way, and allowed to decide whether or not there is a ‘god’ on his own; and if they did feel the need for a deity, was then given a raft of religious literature to peruse, the chances of him choosing to follow Christianity would be pretty low, and of the same probability of all the other options offered him."
 
 It is  strange how that all  works. Sometimes the preachers kid is the worst on the block. Sometimes a kid raised in a non Christian home is presented and accepts. OTOH a heavy dose of nothing but religion can turn a kid off to it if they don't see the intentions behind it and experience it on a personal level. And let's face it how many kids want to be in sunday school? When I was a kid I sometimes played hooky and had the deacons chasing me around the parking lot. Without a personal experience the whole thing is pretty worthless. Religion can be a big turn off. I think every Christian parent hopes that at some point the teaching starts to gain some traction on a more personal level with the child. It doesn't always happen right away. Sometimes the child is into adulthood before they come around. The teaching must be owned and believed to be accepted. Following a religion only because your parents followed it or because you might be shunned isn't beneficial to anyone. In many cultures a person is expected to be in a religion or bad things can happen. In most Christian households they give the child the message and no coersion is involved. It's up to the person to decide when or if. Marilynn Manson was raised in a Christian home, went to a Christian school. He might still come around, who knows?
 
Strummy-"But to me, the religious aspect is irrelevant – good people do good things and bad people do bad things; it need be no more complicated than that."
 
 Yes I agree, I think there are both good natured people and bad natured people by disposition of genetics and environment you could be more or less prone to have a nasty temper or be easy going and jovial. All of us have "buttons" that when pushed we close up and get ornery or outwardly obstinate. Since we all have those buttons, even though they are different none of us are good completely. Good people then are only people who have a better mastery of their bad traits. So good in this context doesn't mean pure. If your religion is only a way to master the  symptoms and not the problem, then it's only a behaviour modification.IMO this might as well be psychology. No different really. If your religion is based around the fact that you were changed inwardly in a supernatural way then anything else is only adding icing to the cake. What good is a religion that only changes behavior but leaves the inner man the same?
 
Steven Weinberg says it much better than me: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
 
 I agree with that premise if the only thing you have is a religion based on corrupted principle. Luckily this isn't the case entirely. Long ago someone figured out how to use religion to manipulate people. The original purpose in many cases has long ago been abandoned. Pure religion is good religion. Bad religion uses manipulation and control to harness people.
 
Strummy-"Nobody ever says that science offers the ‘truth’ about anything. Whatever hypothesis/theorem/theory/Law happens to be current flavour of the month is just that – it’s a best fit of the evidence available. Moreover it is the duty of the scientist to attempt to falsify any theory – a sort of what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger approach.
 
Where I disagree with you is in your statement that “the empirical evidence can change over time”. As far as we are aware, natural and consistent laws apply across our observable universe. What mightchange over time, and this is a subtle but important distinction, is the quality of the empirical evidence, and its interpretation."
 
 LOL Steve, you must travel in different circles than I do. In some Atheist circles science is their god. I think it is fashionable for some atheists to say that science will eventually show the way, but if the data leads to another place that might show something contrary to thier ideas, they might get uncomfortable, the same way that maybe you might say a Christian might not hold up to scrutiny of the book we revere. At some point though, science comes up short and we need to fill in the gaps. How you fill the gaps depends on you. IMO if science is the only tool we can count on for our eternal future then God help us all. 
 
 We have consistency in many scientific discoveries that can be held to a norm. We can base rules off of them and they are pretty dependable. You say this will only get better and I agree with that.You see the sliding scale as an advancement of human intellect, while I tend to see it as an eventual pointer to the truth. For instance, there may well be life on other planets. In some thinking there must be life elsewhere because we have so many earthlike planets. Yet if we find out eventually that life only happens where it was seeded, then we would have to agree that an earthlike planet is only one of the things necessary for life. In this case the sliding scale points to a creator.
 
Strummy "Just as a matter of semantics Tim, can you explain what you mean by “we are created beings”?
 
Before I can address this point specifically, would you please be good enough to say whether you mean ‘created’ as per the literal description outlined in Genesis (i.e. “Young Earth”); or in a more general way, as in you accept big bang theory/evolution etc but believe that mankind’s existence in it is an intended part of these processes, albeit that god was the initiator of these events (i.e. “Old Earth”)."
 
  John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.
 
 I think we had some kind of a big bang.I would rather call it a big beginning. We can see this in space. Since no one really knows with any certainty just exactly how old the earth is, the only thing I could possibly do is guess or side with a view I like. I think that approach is pretty lame. I refuse to become emotionally invested in a view that can't be supported. I think this goes for both sides of the argument.
 That creation was systematic is only about as far as I'll go. According to the Bible man wasn't an accident,so I believe that God was the initiator of these events. How exactly they went down I don't think anyone knows with certainty.I have looked at both sides and there is some compelling evidence for an older earth, but if there is what you might call a supernatural element to the whole thing, and if you believe in God then it isn't much of a stretch to see how we could all misunderstand the data based on His methods not being understood. He might be trying to throw us all off course :)
 
 I'll have to catch up with you later on the rest Steve. Thanks!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Rain

Mooch4056
 
You keep on bringing up the TOS yet participate fully in this discussion. Interesting. 
 
If I have to pick  freely speaking about Christ VS. a TOS...... Christ wins each and every time.
 
 
 

No he doesn't... You DON'T get to pick between the TOS and Christ if you want to participate to these forums.
 

 
Yeah .. He does win every time. and... yes I do get to pick. I ALWAYS pick Christ over world stuff...Every Time. Nothing you can do about that. Heck, there is nothing I can do about that, or cakewalk... or anyone on earth. He wins. Every time. Always have. 
 
I am picking now. I can pick to talk about it or not. Guess which one I just picked?
 
Over 2000 years of that book being ridiculed, studied, debated, murdered over, scrutinized in side out. It still exists. Is there any book or writing even close to the abuse the Bible has taken? How does that book keep on going and going. Jesus said things of this world will die out but His Words will live forever. Why and how is that ? Oh yeah because He's God. 
 
Either Christianity is the Biggest hoax that one man has ever made on the world for over 2000 years or He's the real deal. 
 
I mean this would be a bigger hoax than ObamaCare and that right there is a pretty dang big one!
 
 
<GASP> 
 
(Shrugs) 
 
Why don't I get to use Bible verses. Oh because you're all ready a bible scholar... 
 
Hey man I've read the bible since I was 7 years old and I am still learn new things from it all the time. That's pretty impressive that you've picked it up faster than me. 
 
 
I always try to keep this in mind for things like the TOS ...... John 15:18 "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.   Or this ... Matthew 10:12
You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
 
I wonder if God was thinking about the Cakewalk TOS when he said those words 
 
nah .. Just kidding .....I wasn't wondering that at all 
 
I crack myself up!