How do I determine what God requires of me?

[McCulloch]

I have posted what I think is the single most important issue to debate.

To me, the second most important issue is this. If there is a God, how do I determine what God requires of me? If your answer involves something that is from human agency, a book or an organization, then the question remains, "How do I know that the book's authors or the organization's leaders authoritatively speak for God?"

How do I determine what God requires of me?

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't know that God does not exist. I don't know that God doesn't interfere or intervene, whichever you choose, in our lives.

Agreed. You do not know that gods do or do not exist. No one can prove one way or another. You can believe either way, but that is opinion, NOT knowledge.

You can choose to “believe in” any of the thousands of gods, or some of them, or all of them, or none of them. There is NO EVIDENCE to support any such decision.

The “believe just in case” argument (Pascal’s wager) is a fool’s errand because one CANNOT believe in all available gods “just in case” – and the ONE overlooked might be the “real god” – no one knows (though many think they know).

In evaluating the responses to your posts notice the difference between Theist and Non-Theist presentations. Theist responses tend to be emotionally based reassurances that their beliefs and their favorite gods offer “salvation” and “hope”. Non-Theist responses tend to encourage you to think and decide on your own based in reason and real life experience rather than hoping or praying for external guidance.

So is it your contention that we appeal to emotions more than non-theists?

It my observation that in debate theists tend to rely upon emotions (faith, hope, belief) and opinion or conjecture more heavily than reason and evidence. Religious “evidence” offered is usually “somebody said something” (usually referring to ancient writers and their later editors, transcriptionists, revisionists and rewriters – or referring to self-appointed “representatives of gods”).

External guidance can come from my best friend, my mother, my pastor (if I had one) and many other source not to mention God.

I agree, with doubt regarding the latter.

I will have to admit that I have gotten no guidance from God here so my belief is fairly weak right now. I don't know if it will return or not.

“Guidance from god” cannot be distinguished from internal “guidance” (one’s own mental processes). Many claim otherwise but cannot demonstrate that they speak the truth. Are you aware of any evidence (not opinion or conjecture) that divine guidance is REAL?

If something good happens in life you will be advised by many to “give credit to god” (a version of “goddidit”). How could one determine for CERTAIN that an “influence” was not from “Satan”? That biblical character is credited with the ability to deceive humans and to perform super-human feats, right?

In sixty-eight years of active and varied life I can honestly say that I have never received any “guidance from god” (though many have attempted to convince me that “god works in mysterious ways” and has secretly influenced me).

Ok, seriously, you are correct. From what I have seen so far, there is more emotions in belief than in non-belief. I still don't think that gives it any less credence.

I have found it advisable to base decisions primarily upon reason, evidence, knowledge and experience – and to allow emotion only very limited influence in decisions.

The “yah but” response that I often hear in response to that statement (by those who prefer emotion to reason) is, “Yah, but you and your wife married because of emotion”. WRONG. We married because we DECIDED that we wanted to be life partners based a year and a half together. It was “not our first rodeo” and we were not overcome with infatuation, instant lust or unsatisfied desires. We did NOT have “stars in our eyes”. Ours was a very simple and VERY different wedding ceremony (that I will describe in PM if you are interested). We are not naïve nor are we children.

We made a wise decision because our life together is everything that either of us could ask for in terms of love, commitment, fulfillment and satisfaction.

It just complicates things, a lot.

Yes, overuse of emotion in decisions tends to create a lot of problems and complications.

That is exemplified by the saying that males have two heads but not enough blood supply to operate both at the same time. Ask any older woman you trust to verify the accuracy of that statement.

It has led me to question the basic beliefs I have held on to despite being the only one bombarded by a family of non-believers.

You are fortunate, in my opinion, because many in similar situations are bombarded by believers – since birth.

You are a young adult, capable of reason, discernment, judgment. You can consider what is said by others and play that against what you think for yourself, and thus make decisions.

Children are not yet capable of exercising reason, discernment and judgment – and are gullible. Ideas infused in childhood are remarkably resilient – even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Childhood religious “training” and “teaching” is often correctly termed indoctrination.

I don't think that a belief in God necessarily says you cannot think outside the box. Achilles and Micatala are two prime examples of being able to think outside the box.

Add Cnorman, Tselem, MagusYanam and a few others who are THINKERS who happen to be religious. They do NOT confine themselves to boxes prescribed by religion and dogma.

On the other hand, consider the Fanatical Fundamentalists who espouse a very rigid, intolerant, condemning version of Christianity (or any other religion). Would you say that they represent “out-of-the-box”, thinking or a rational version of religion?

HOWEVER, the above does NOT address my comment at all -- ”But, there is NO assurance that “whatever happens” is influenced by invisible super beings. Those who preach such things CANNOT demonstrate that gods interfere with human lives.”

No matter how intelligent, wise and thoughtful the person, they CANNOT demonstrate that ANYTHING that happens in life is influenced by gods. The very best they can do is to make the claim “goddidit” and demand that others “prove my theories wrong”. Goddidit works in religious thinking or in church but does not work in debate with those who do not accept the same beliefs.

I don't think that everything that happens in your life is divine will.

We agree – only I think that NOTHING that happens in our life can be shown to be “divine will”. Can you think of an exception that can be SHOWN to be “divinely influenced”?

I think we are human and subject to human screw ups.

I agree.

They aren't always meant to teach a lesson to us. Sometimes they can be just to teach a lesson to another and you are merely a pawn in the lesson.

I always question “meant to” – asking meant by whom? Those who attempt to tell ME that “god meant” anything are going to be challenged because they have made a statement to me (or in public) that they cannot support. In other words, a person should not tell me “goddidit” unless they are prepared to verify the existence and actions of gods.

Anyone is entitled to think that gods did whatever – but they are NOT entitled to claim that as a fact (or, in my opinion, to ethically claim “goddidit” with certainty to another person). They cannot, in all honesty, say more than that they are stating an OPINION – though few are honorable or ethical enough to acknowledge that limitation. I respect those who are.

Sometimes we learn from our experiences and sometimes others learn from our experiences. That needs no “divine” explanation. In fact, claiming “divine influence” for “lessons” is crediting gods with what cannot be shown to be the product of gods.

Sometime stuff just happens for no reason at all.

Are you saying that things happen without ANY cause? Can you cite an example?

Or are you saying that in some instances we do not know the cause? That is a very different statement.

Or by “no reason” do you mean no “divine” reason? That entails assumptions rather than reasoning and evidence.

If we look at every event as a message from God, we will never advance.

I agree – and take the statement a little further. I maintain that looking at ANY event as a “message from god” PREVENTS us from searching for the real significance of the event and its causative or influencing factors AND its real effects.

We would still be stuck in 300 A.D. (An awesome movie with sweet 6-8 pack abs, SWEET!!). We are meant to use our brains, not rely on God for anything except comfort. It may not mean much to you, but it means much to me.

I applaud those who find comfort. As a child I found comfort in a teddy bear – is there any difference?

Being ignorant of the Earth and the universe led people to make stories about the Earth being the center of the universe or the Earth stopping rotation (“sun stood still”). Likewise, ignorance of the size and configuration of the Earth led to stories about a worldwide flood “to the tops of mountains” and tales of a “high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the Earth” could be seen (obviously impossible on a spherical body).

Yes, and we now know them to have been idiots. 100 years from now, we will be considered just as stupid.

Ma’am, let’s start again. Ancient people we NOT idiots. There were very wise people in all eras (and some not-so-wise). One brilliant fellow, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, Libya, who lived 276 BCE to 194 BCE not only knew that the Earth was spherical, but calculated accurately its circumference and its angle of axial inclination.

Earlier people lacked much of the knowledge and information that we have available. However, ignorance (or lack of knowledge) is very different from idiocy. The former indicates a lack of knowledge and the latter the lack of ability to learn.

A wise person looking at our accomplishments and ideas a century or a millennium in the future may rightly conclude that our information and knowledge are inferior to hers. However, she would be UNWISE to conclude that we are stupid.

We evolve.

Genetic evolution (in that sense of the word) is a slow process. Those who study the matter understand that very little actual human evolution has occurred since biblical times.

Our thinking, knowledge base, and social practices evolve (in the sense of changing) much more rapidly. You are experiencing a very rapid “evolution of ideas” on the personal level, for instance.

We learn. We should never allow beliefs to override common sense or rely on status quo to dictate our futures. We make them.

Agree 100%. If, for example, a belief system states that a person “comes back to life” after being truly dead, we should NOT override common sense and scientific knowledge to accept a CLAIM or story that such a thing happened on someone’s word (or writings) only without substantiation that such a thing actually happened.

For a “common sense” discussion of what happens to a body after death, see my recent post in the Head to Head sub-forum thread regarding the “resurrection”.

Typically what happens in such discussions is that if the person is rational they will eventually acknowledge that they cannot offer anything more than opinion and hearsay to verify the claim of “return to life” after being dead.

Many staunch religionists acknowledge that that the resurrection tale is mythical. Thus, they can retain some reverence for biblical accounts and dogma while attempting to retain some connection to reality of the world we inhabit.

The most ardent fundamentalists resort to “goddidit” as the “explanation” for the resurrection and all biblical “miracles” or magic tricks (and for everything else in life it seems).

It is up to us to search out our meaning in life.

OR we may be wise to NOT concern ourselves with “meaning of life” and simply learn to live successfully by our own standards. I have never felt any need to search for “meaning” in my life – because life has always been very meaningful to me just as it occurs.

Those I have known who were most inclined to ponder “the meaning of life” never struck me as particularly satisfied with life or successful in their own terms. Perhaps they pondered in response to a feeling of failure or purposelessness. I don’t know.

I admit, I have had few opportunities to do this yet, and I the ones I have, as I suspect you know, have turned to crud quickly and mom had to bail me out. But lessons learned, even the hard way, are more appreciated than lessons taught.

• A foolish person does not learn from their mistakes.
• An intelligent person learns from their mistakes.
• A wise person learns from the mistakes of others.
• A person who is intelligent and wise does both, and thereby minimizes mistakes in number and severity.

Currently, I go to the Pensacola chapter of the UU, so you know that I am not directed this way.

Good move, Bright Eyes.

Notice also that thousands of different “gods” have been loved, feared and worshiped by humans and that there are several that are popular currently. What ALL gods have in common is a complete lack of evidence of existence. Although all gods are equally devoid of proof, those who worship gods are often willing to kill or die “in the name of god”.

I don't know that all aren't the same God, just different understandings of Him. Perhaps there is no right or wrong understanding. Just ones we can live with.

Perhaps. However, the various “gods” are claimed to have said some very different things to different people.

Should we propose that Thor and Odin are the same as Jesus and the god of the OT? For that matter, Jesus and the OT gods seem to be saying very different things – does that really indicate the “three-in-one god”?

Can’t gods get their story straight? Or could they be entertaining themselves by encouraging humans to hate one another for frivolous reasons (like religious belief differences) and to fight with one another?

[olavisjo]

Before we can determine what God requires we must accept that it is possible (however improbable) that he may exist.
For evidence look at all the stuff around you, and ask where did it come from, I can only come up with about three scenarios.

1.) It has always been there.
2.) It was created from nothing, by nothing.
3.) It was created by something greater than the universe.
4.) We don't know, but by faith in science we believe that one day we will discover the origins of matter and energy.

Number 1. has pretty much been ruled out by observation, number 2. makes no sense, number 3. is the only rational explanation, number 4. may never produce any fruit.
Do you have any credible evidence to present on where a non-theistic universe would come from? If evidence is available, kindly bring it forward for examination and discussion.
If not, then we will talk about your Thor, Zeus and Jesus straw man.

I didn't know that #1 had been ruled out. I would have thought that the universe existing eternally, in some form or another, is a possibility.

It is a possibility, that is why I said "pretty much been ruled out", all the significant peer-review committees have rejected such theories.

#2. why?

When is the last time you saw something created from nothing?

#3. ah - the "i don't know ergo 'goddidit'" argument.

Not at all, just one of many options, along with an invitation for more.

#4. 'faith in science'?. My favorite equivocation.

What else would you call a future hope that science will provide the answer.

If the only evidence for a god is the existence of the universe then why bother with a god concept?

You are the hardest person for me to understand at this site. The universe is not significant to you but the grammar I use to phrase things is. Can you tell me in simple terms what your concept of reality is?
The universe was not the only evidence in that post, my reference to an "invisible moral law giver" was the other evidence there. But to those that are willing to accept it, the evidence is overwhelming, but to those who do not want to accept it, there is no convincing evidence.

[OpenedUp]

Before we can determine what God requires we must accept that it is possible (however improbable) that he may exist.
For evidence look at all the stuff around you, and ask where did it come from, I can only come up with about three scenarios.

1.) It has always been there.
2.) It was created from nothing, by nothing.
3.) It was created by something greater than the universe.
4.) We don't know, but by faith in science we believe that one day we will discover the origins of matter and energy.

Number 1. has pretty much been ruled out by observation, number 2. makes no sense, number 3. is the only rational explanation, number 4. may never produce any fruit.
Do you have any credible evidence to present on where a non-theistic universe would come from? If evidence is available, kindly bring it forward for examination and discussion.
If not, then we will talk about your Thor, Zeus and Jesus straw man.

I didn't know that #1 had been ruled out. I would have thought that the universe existing eternally, in some form or another, is a possibility.

It is a possibility, that is why I said "pretty much been ruled out", all the significant peer-review committees have rejected such theories.

Has God always existed? Does he lie in some realm that makes him exempt from being considered "always existing" in our traditional sense?

#2. why?

When is the last time you saw something created from nothing?

When was the last time you saw God?

#3. ah - the "i don't know ergo 'goddidit'" argument.

Not at all, just one of many options, along with an invitation for more.

Yes, but that certainly doesn't make it the "only rational explanation"

#4. 'faith in science'?. My favorite equivocation.

What else would you call a future hope that science will provide the answer.

I personally think it hope rather than faith. I think it does involve a little faith, but not in the religious sense (which is typically belief without the need for proof)

[bernee51]

Before we can determine what God requires we must accept that it is possible (however improbable) that he may exist.
For evidence look at all the stuff around you, and ask where did it come from, I can only come up with about three scenarios.

1.) It has always been there.
2.) It was created from nothing, by nothing.
3.) It was created by something greater than the universe.
4.) We don't know, but by faith in science we believe that one day we will discover the origins of matter and energy.

Number 1. has pretty much been ruled out by observation, number 2. makes no sense, number 3. is the only rational explanation, number 4. may never produce any fruit.
Do you have any credible evidence to present on where a non-theistic universe would come from? If evidence is available, kindly bring it forward for examination and discussion.
If not, then we will talk about your Thor, Zeus and Jesus straw man.

I didn't know that #1 had been ruled out. I would have thought that the universe existing eternally, in some form or another, is a possibility.

It is a possibility, that is why I said "pretty much been ruled out", all the significant peer-review committees have rejected such theories.

But not all as this article notes: "The Big Bang was big, but it wasn't the beginning, Cambridge University mathematical physicist Neil Turok says. He theorizes that the universe is engaged in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction: There have been many Big Bangs, and there will be many more."

#2. why?

When is the last time you saw something created from nothing?

Where do sub atomic particles come from and go to at a quantum level?

#3. ah - the "i don't know ergo 'goddidit'" argument.

Not at all, just one of many options, along with an invitation for more.

The more being...?

#4. 'faith in science'?. My favorite equivocation.

What else would you call a future hope that science will provide the answer.

Certainly not faith...nor do I particularly 'hope' that they will provide an answer.

If the only evidence for a god is the existence of the universe then why bother with a god concept?

You are the hardest person for me to understand at this site.

Thank you.

The universe is not significant to you but the grammar I use to phrase things is.

What gives you the idea that the universe is not significant to me?

Can you tell me in simple terms what your concept of reality is?

We are made up of atoms and molecules, powered by a biomechanical system with a neural network sophisticated (i.e. evolved) enough to produce a mind with a self aware consciousness.

We are born and we die and all else in between is a mental construct. Is that simple enough?

The universe was not the only evidence in that post, my reference to an "invisible moral law giver" was the other evidence there.

Isn't it amazing how the invisible and the non-existent look so similar?

But to those that are willing to accept it, the evidence is overwhelming, but to those who do not want to accept it, there is no convincing evidence.

The gap between those two is made up of faith. And I use the term with no equivocation.

May you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful

[olavisjo]

But not all as this article notes: "The Big Bang was big, but it wasn't the beginning, Cambridge University mathematical physicist Neil Turok says. He theorizes that the universe is engaged in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction: There have been many Big Bangs, and there will be many more."

Nice example...

However, I feel that the main role for these scenarios of the early universe is to stimulate our thinking. I don't necessarily believe any of them. The most important thing is that the only intellectually honest way to study such questions of cosmology is to make the most precise model you can. I think of the whole thing as a giant intellectual exercise, a stimulating exercise, to make us better appreciate the universe.
...
No, but one of the extraordinary things about the field is that whatever culture people come from, they all love this stuff. The popularity Hawking has achieved is due in part to him being an exceptional individual, but it's also because the questions and the science are inherently fascinating.

It's been amazing to see students from all over Africa, from countries that have been disaster areas for 30 years, come to the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences and try to best Einstein.

Even he does not believe it. But that is what peer-review is all about, trying to be the next Hawking or Einstein. You are not going to get there by echoing somebody else's theory, you have to make your own and find a way to convince others that you are right, even if you know yourself that you are wrong. That is why we come to this site to debate, we all want to be the one whose argument was so persuasive that no one could refute us, and the world will beat a path to our door...

#2. why?

When is the last time you saw something created from nothing?

Where do sub atomic particles come from and go to at a quantum level?

Your guess is as good as mine. If we could answer that, we would be the next next Hawking or Einstein. But as far as anyone knows they come and go in a way that matter and energy are conserved.

#3. ah - the "i don't know ergo 'goddidit'" argument.

Not at all, just one of many options, along with an invitation for more.

The more being...?

The more being, ah - the "i don't know ergo 'sciencedidit'" argument.

#4. 'faith in science'?. My favorite equivocation.

What else would you call a future hope that science will provide the answer.

Certainly not faith...nor do I particularly 'hope' that they will provide an answer.

Agreed, my hope is not in science either, but my hope is in a loving God.

If the only evidence for a god is the existence of the universe then why bother with a god concept?

You are the hardest person for me to understand at this site.

Thank you.

The universe is not significant to you but the grammar I use to phrase things is.

What gives you the idea that the universe is not significant to me?

It was your use of the words 'only' and 'why bother' in the above sentence that gave me that impression.

Can you tell me in simple terms what your concept of reality is?

We are made up of atoms and molecules, powered by a bio mechanical system with a neural network sophisticated (i.e. evolved) enough to produce a mind with a self aware consciousness.

We are born and we die and all else in between is a mental construct. Is that simple enough?

Yes, it is simple enough, it also makes me feel very sad.

The universe was not the only evidence in that post, my reference to an "invisible moral law giver" was the other evidence there.

Isn't it amazing how the invisible and the non-existent look so similar?

I have to agree with you there, we could call that the 'ostrich syndrome'. Out of sight, out of mind.

But to those that are willing to accept it, the evidence is overwhelming, but to those who do not want to accept it, there is no convincing evidence.

The gap between those two is made up of faith. And I use the term with no equivocation.

May you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful

You used the word 'equivocation' twice in this post, but I could not figure out what you meant by it. Can you give me your definition of the word?
Thank you for the blessing, and may God bless you also.

[olavisjo]

Has God always existed? Does he lie in some realm that makes him exempt from being considered "always existing" in our traditional sense?

Yes, that would be my hypothesis, that God exists in a realm not governed by the law of time, but rather time is an invention for our universe. This is a concept that is very difficult to imagine by a creature who is so bound by time as we are. It is like Micky Mouse trying to understand the world that Walt Disney lived in.

#2. why?

When is the last time you saw something created from nothing?

When was the last time you saw God?

My point exactly, only God can create something from nothing, or what would appear to us as coming from nothing.

#3. ah - the "i don't know ergo 'goddidit'" argument.

Not at all, just one of many options, along with an invitation for more.

Yes, but that certainly doesn't make it the "only rational explanation"

You are right, 'only' is a little too strong of a word at the moment, so I am sure you would agree that "most rational explanation" would be more appropriate.

#4. 'faith in science'?. My favorite equivocation.

What else would you call a future hope that science will provide the answer.

I personally think it hope rather than faith. I think it does involve a little faith, but not in the religious sense (which is typically belief without the need for proof)

Why would any person 'hope' for a theory that promises eternal sleep with no dreams? Unless deep down inside they have a fear that something worse may befall them after death.
If your belief is not "without the need of proof", what proof do you have for your belief?

[Flail]

Perhaps the best source of 'meaning',morals and 'truths' for any of us can be found in common sense, reason and logic, sprinkled with a good amount of open minded debate while rejecting all indoctrinations, rituals,belief systems and self righteousness.

If you draw a line in the sand and put yourself and God on one side and those of differing indoctrinations on the other, you have become selfishly righteous.

[alexiarose]

.

I don't know that God does not exist. I don't know that God doesn't interfere or intervene, whichever you choose, in our lives.

Agreed. You do not know that gods do or do not exist. No one can prove one way or another. You can believe either way, but that is opinion, NOT knowledge.

You can choose to “believe in” any of the thousands of gods, or some of them, or all of them, or none of them. There is NO EVIDENCE to support any such decision.

Notice your words. I can CHOOSE.

The “believe just in case” argument (Pascal’s wager) is a fool’s errand because one CANNOT believe in all available gods “just in case” – and the ONE overlooked might be the “real god” – no one knows (though many think they know).

Yes, I know what that is. And I don't believe I committed it Mr. Z.

In evaluating the responses to your posts notice the difference between Theist and Non-Theist presentations. Theist responses tend to be emotionally based reassurances that their beliefs and their favorite gods offer “salvation” and “hope”. Non-Theist responses tend to encourage you to think and decide on your own based in reason and real life experience rather than hoping or praying for external guidance.

So is it your contention that we appeal to emotions more than non-theists?

It my observation that in debate theists tend to rely upon emotions (faith, hope, belief) and opinion or conjecture more heavily than reason and evidence. Religious “evidence” offered is usually “somebody said something” (usually referring to ancient writers and their later editors, transcriptionists, revisionists and rewriters – or referring to self-appointed “representatives of gods”).

So you are stereotyping me? Or do you actually have a question here that is relevant to me?

External guidance can come from my best friend, my mother, my pastor (if I had one) and many other source not to mention God.

I agree, with doubt regarding the latter.

That is the beauty of freedom. You are free to doubt it or reject it. I don't think my voice will sway you one way or the other.

I will have to admit that I have gotten no guidance from God here so my belief is fairly weak right now. I don't know if it will return or not.

“Guidance from god” cannot be distinguished from internal “guidance” (one’s own mental processes). Many claim otherwise but cannot demonstrate that they speak the truth. Are you aware of any evidence (not opinion or conjecture) that divine guidance is REAL?

Nope. I sure aren't. That is probably bad English huh? Well, the grammar cop hasn't busted on me in a while.

If something good happens in life you will be advised by many to “give credit to god” (a version of “goddidit”). How could one determine for CERTAIN that an “influence” was not from “Satan”? That biblical character is credited with the ability to deceive humans and to perform super-human feats, right?

If something good happens, it will be because of the effort done by myself or someone on my behalf. I don't need to apply anything divine. Are you finished yet?

In sixty-eight years of active and varied life I can honestly say that I have never received any “guidance from god” (though many have attempted to convince me that “god works in mysterious ways” and has secretly influenced me).

Good for you. And mom hates that phrase too so I don't use it.

Ok, seriously, you are correct. From what I have seen so far, there is more emotions in belief than in non-belief. I still don't think that gives it any less credence.

I have found it advisable to base decisions primarily upon reason, evidence, knowledge and experience – and to allow emotion only very limited influence in decisions.

The “yah but” response that I often hear in response to that statement (by those who prefer emotion to reason) is, “Yah, but you and your wife married because of emotion”. WRONG. We married because we DECIDED that we wanted to be life partners based a year and a half together. It was “not our first rodeo” and we were not overcome with infatuation, instant lust or unsatisfied desires. We did NOT have “stars in our eyes”. Ours was a very simple and VERY different wedding ceremony (that I will describe in PM if you are interested). We are not naïve nor are we children.

We made a wise decision because our life together is everything that either of us could ask for in terms of love, commitment, fulfillment and satisfaction.

You are correct and I have already had my head handed to for that stupid thinking. Aren't you so glad someone has already jumped down my throat and turned me upside down making this point?

It just complicates things, a lot.

Yes, overuse of emotion in decisions tends to create a lot of problems and complications.

That is exemplified by the saying that males have two heads but not enough blood supply to operate both at the same time. Ask any older woman you trust to verify the accuracy of that statement.

Yeah, and you know what, there is nothing wrong with emotions. You find them to be irrelevant in debates. Great. Yup, got that.

It has led me to question the basic beliefs I have held on to despite being the only one bombarded by a family of non-believers.

You are fortunate, in my opinion, because many in similar situations are bombarded by believers – since birth.

I don't think I would consider anything about me fortunate. A curse to be sure. But fortunate at the cost of those I love. Sure.

You are a young adult, capable of reason, discernment, judgment. You can consider what is said by others and play that against what you think for yourself, and thus make decisions.

I still have a lot to learn. I admit this.

Children are not yet capable of exercising reason, discernment and judgment – and are gullible. Ideas infused in childhood are remarkably resilient – even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Childhood religious “training” and “teaching” is often correctly termed indoctrination.

Since I am never having kids, I don't feel this is relevant. Nor will it ever be so.

I don't think that a belief in God necessarily says you cannot think outside the box. Achilles and Micatala are two prime examples of being able to think outside the box.

Add Cnorman, Tselem, MagusYanam and a few others who are THINKERS who happen to be religious. They do NOT confine themselves to boxes prescribed by religion and dogma.

Yeah. I should have included them.

On the other hand, consider the Fanatical Fundamentalists who espouse a very rigid, intolerant, condemning version of Christianity (or any other religion). Would you say that they represent “out-of-the-box”, thinking or a rational version of religion?

What do they have to do with me? Do you realize how tiring it becomes have to justify why I am NOT like them?

HOWEVER, the above does NOT address my comment at all -- ”But, there is NO assurance that “whatever happens” is influenced by invisible super beings. Those who preach such things CANNOT demonstrate that gods interfere with human lives.”

You are right. But there is not proof He didn't either. So don't slam me for something that you yourself cannot disprove.

No matter how intelligent, wise and thoughtful the person, they CANNOT demonstrate that ANYTHING that happens in life is influenced by gods. The very best they can do is to make the claim “goddidit” and demand that others “prove my theories wrong”. Goddidit works in religious thinking or in church but does not work in debate with those who do not accept the same beliefs.

Did I make this claim somewhere because I am really tired of hearing it.

I don't think that everything that happens in your life is divine will.

We agree – only I think that NOTHING that happens in our life can be shown to be “divine will”. Can you think of an exception that can be SHOWN to be “divinely influenced”?

Nope. Sometimes stuff just happens. Did God intervene/interfere? I don't know.

They aren't always meant to teach a lesson to us. Sometimes they can be just to teach a lesson to another and you are merely a pawn in the lesson.

I always question “meant to” – asking meant by whom? Those who attempt to tell ME that “god meant” anything are going to be challenged because they have made a statement to me (or in public) that they cannot support. In other words, a person should not tell me “goddidit” unless they are prepared to verify the existence and actions of gods.

When I invoke the Goddidit clause, then slam me, ok?

Anyone is entitled to think that gods did whatever – but they are NOT entitled to claim that as a fact (or, in my opinion, to ethically claim “goddidit” with certainty to another person). They cannot, in all honesty, say more than that they are stating an OPINION – though few are honorable or ethical enough to acknowledge that limitation. I respect those who are.

I doubt I will earn any respect here and I really don't care anymore. God may not exist. I admit that. I admit my faith is anything but strong. I admit that at this moment I hold more hate than love. Happy?

Sometimes we learn from our experiences and sometimes others learn from our experiences. That needs no “divine” explanation. In fact, claiming “divine influence” for “lessons” is crediting gods with what cannot be shown to be the product of gods.

I don't credit God with anything, yet this whole post seems to be aimed at proving to me that I did? Or am I missing the point like always?

Sometime stuff just happens for no reason at all.

Are you saying that things happen without ANY cause? Can you cite an example?

Or are you saying that in some instances we do not know the cause? That is a very different statement.

Or by “no reason” do you mean no “divine” reason? That entails assumptions rather than reasoning and evidence.

As I have posted this a thousand times, what is one more, right? I don't know the cause. It could be nature, it could not. I have no explanation and I don't invoke God as one.

We would still be stuck in 300 A.D. (An awesome movie with sweet 6-8 pack abs, SWEET!!). We are meant to use our brains, not rely on God for anything except comfort. It may not mean much to you, but it means much to me.

I applaud those who find comfort. As a child I found comfort in a teddy bear – is there any difference?

Spare me.

Being ignorant of the Earth and the universe led people to make stories about the Earth being the center of the universe or the Earth stopping rotation (“sun stood still”). Likewise, ignorance of the size and configuration of the Earth led to stories about a worldwide flood “to the tops of mountains” and tales of a “high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the Earth” could be seen (obviously impossible on a spherical body).

Yes, and we now know them to have been idiots. 100 years from now, we will be considered just as stupid.

Ma’am, let’s start again. Ancient people we NOT idiots. There were very wise people in all eras (and some not-so-wise). One brilliant fellow, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, Libya, who lived 276 BCE to 194 BCE not only knew that the Earth was spherical, but calculated accurately its circumference and its angle of axial inclination.

Earlier people lacked much of the knowledge and information that we have available. However, ignorance (or lack of knowledge) is very different from idiocy. The former indicates a lack of knowledge and the latter the lack of ability to learn.

A wise person looking at our accomplishments and ideas a century or a millennium in the future may rightly conclude that our information and knowledge are inferior to hers. However, she would be UNWISE to conclude that we are stupid.

Fine.

We evolve.

Genetic evolution (in that sense of the word) is a slow process. Those who study the matter understand that very little actual human evolution has occurred since biblical times.

Our thinking, knowledge base, and social practices evolve (in the sense of changing) much more rapidly. You are experiencing a very rapid “evolution of ideas” on the personal level, for instance.

No, I am experiencing a complete and utter betrayal. Happy?

We learn. We should never allow beliefs to override common sense or rely on status quo to dictate our futures. We make them.

Agree 100%. If, for example, a belief system states that a person “comes back to life” after being truly dead, we should NOT override common sense and scientific knowledge to accept a CLAIM or story that such a thing happened on someone’s word (or writings) only without substantiation that such a thing actually happened.

For a “common sense” discussion of what happens to a body after death, see my recent post in the Head to Head sub-forum thread regarding the “resurrection”.

Typically what happens in such discussions is that if the person is rational they will eventually acknowledge that they cannot offer anything more than opinion and hearsay to verify the claim of “return to life” after being dead.

Many staunch religionists acknowledge that that the resurrection tale is mythical. Thus, they can retain some reverence for biblical accounts and dogma while attempting to retain some connection to reality of the world we inhabit.

The most ardent fundamentalists resort to “goddidit” as the “explanation” for the resurrection and all biblical “miracles” or magic tricks (and for everything else in life it seems).

Again, when I invoke this GODDIDIT issue, feel free to preach a little heavier for my benefit. I am sure if you ask, mom will even jump on the band wagon.

I admit, I have had few opportunities to do this yet, and I the ones I have, as I suspect you know, have turned to crud quickly and mom had to bail me out. But lessons learned, even the hard way, are more appreciated than lessons taught.

• A foolish person does not learn from their mistakes.
• An intelligent person learns from their mistakes.
• A wise person learns from the mistakes of others.
• A person who is intelligent and wise does both, and thereby minimizes mistakes in number and severity.

Ok.

Notice also that thousands of different “gods” have been loved, feared and worshiped by humans and that there are several that are popular currently. What ALL gods have in common is a complete lack of evidence of existence. Although all gods are equally devoid of proof, those who worship gods are often willing to kill or die “in the name of god”.

I don't know that all aren't the same God, just different understandings of Him. Perhaps there is no right or wrong understanding. Just ones we can live with.

Perhaps. However, the various “gods” are claimed to have said some very different things to different people.

Should we propose that Thor and Odin are the same as Jesus and the god of the OT? For that matter, Jesus and the OT gods seem to be saying very different things – does that really indicate the “three-in-one god”?

Can’t gods get their story straight? Or could they be entertaining themselves by encouraging humans to hate one another for frivolous reasons (like religious belief differences) and to fight with one another?

You want me to answer a question designed for someone I can't even show exists? Sure.

[Fisherking]

You can believe either way, but that is opinion, NOT knowledge.

My objective is NOT to “win” debates but encourage fundamentalists to discredit religious beliefs by challenging unsupported claims and asking difficult questions. All expressed is opinion.

You can choose to “believe in” any of the thousands of gods, or some of them, or all of them, or none of them. There is NO EVIDENCE to support any such decision.

Sure there is, but for many no evidence is needed.

It my observation that in debate theists tend to rely upon emotions (faith, hope, belief) and opinion or conjecture more heavily than reason and evidence. Religious “evidence” offered is usually “somebody said something” (usually referring to ancient writers and their later editors, transcriptionists, revisionists and rewriters – or referring to self-appointed “representatives of gods”).

According to your statement,

You can choose to “believe in”...... none of them. There is NO EVIDENCE to support any such decision

The non-theist also only has opinion and conjecture to rely upon because there is "NO EVIDENCE" to support such a belief, correct?

I will have to admit that I have gotten no guidance from God here so my belief is fairly weak right now. I don't know if it will return or not.

“Guidance from god” cannot be distinguished from internal “guidance” (one’s own mental processes). Many claim otherwise but cannot demonstrate that they speak the truth. Are you aware of any evidence (not opinion or conjecture) that divine guidance is REAL?

Experiencing God is very real to those that have experienced God. If someone cannot demonstrate to others that their experience with God is real, it in no way negates the truth of their experience. Are you aware of any evidence (not opinion or conjecture) that divine guidance is not real?

“In sixty-eight years of active and varied life I can honestly say that I have never received any “guidance from god” (though many have attempted to convince me that “god works in mysterious ways” and has secretly influenced me).

If "you believe in...... none of them"[god's], how can you honestly say that you have never recieved any "guidance from god", when you say "there is NO EVIDENCE to support any such decision"?

“Children are not yet capable of exercising reason, discernment and judgment – and are gullible. Ideas infused in childhood are remarkably resilient – even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Childhood religious “training” and “teaching” is often correctly termed indoctrination.

All children are indoctrinated by their parents (non-theist indoctrinate theirs too). If you are saying that children start to think for themselves when they become adults, I would agree.

I don't think that a belief in God necessarily says you cannot think outside the box. Achilles and Micatala are two prime examples of being able to think outside the box.

Add ..... .... ..... and a few others who are THINKERS who happen to be religious. They do NOT confine themselves to boxes prescribed by religion and dogma.

There are many thinkers who happen to be religious who do not confine themselves to the box prescribed by the non/anti-religious/theist. These are considered "Fanatical Fundamentalists who espouse a very rigid, intolerant, condemning version of Christianity (or any other religion)" by the non=theist type. They agree with very little of what the non-theist has to say so they are automatically stereotyped as a fanatical fundamentalist ruled by emotion and sky daddies. The theist that agree with the non-theist on almost every issue are certainly to be accepted by non-theists. The motive of many of the "thinking" theists (those that agree with the non-theists) are to appease the non-theist.

But, there is NO assurance that “whatever happens” is influenced by invisible super beings. Those who preach such things CANNOT demonstrate that gods interfere with human lives. No matter how intelligent, wise and thoughtful the person, they CANNOT demonstrate that ANYTHING that happens in life is influenced by gods. The very best they can do is to make the claim “goddidit” and demand that others “prove my theories wrong”. Goddidit works in religious thinking or in church but does not work in debate with those who do not accept the same beliefs.

Of course it doesn't and is a big reason why there aren't alot of "converts" here. If we are debating someone who is convinced beforehand that things (invisible super beings) CANNOT be demonstrated to exist or interfere in human lives, regardless of "how intelligent, wise and thoughtful the person" (or their argument possibly?), the evidence will be waved away and disregarded as conjecture. Its really nothing new.

I don't think that everything that happens in your life is divine will.

We agree

If one agrees enough, they will be accepted into the "thinking theist" group.

In other words, a person should not tell me “goddidit” unless they are prepared to verify the existence and actions of gods.

One shouldn't tell anyone "goddidntdoit" unless they are sure "goddidntdoit".

Anyone is entitled to think that gods did whatever – but they are NOT entitled to claim that as a fact (or, in my opinion, to ethically claim “goddidit” with certainty to another person).

How about claiming "goddidntdoit" as a fact?

I maintain that looking at ANY event as a “message from god” PREVENTS us from searching for the real significance of the event and its causative or influencing factors AND its real effects.

Are you now publicly claiming "goddidntdoit" as a fact or is this merely an opinion?

For a “common sense” discussion of what happens to a body after death, see my recent post in the Head to Head sub-forum thread regarding the “resurrection”

I also would direct everyone to this thread. It show why it is important to establish a consistent methodology in studying ancient history, to rid us or expose the bias we my knowingly or unknowingly bring with us to a debate.

[bernee51]

Can you tell me in simple terms what your concept of reality is?

We are made up of atoms and molecules, powered by a bio mechanical system with a neural network sophisticated (i.e. evolved) enough to produce a mind with a self aware consciousness.

We are born and we die and all else in between is a mental construct. Is that simple enough?

Yes, it is simple enough, it also makes me feel very sad.

And I find it liberating. The wonders (and horrors) that result from that construct!

You asked for a simple explanation...that's what I gave. However, also part of that construct is 'soul' - the conduit to 'spirit'.

The universe was not the only evidence in that post, my reference to an "invisible moral law giver" was the other evidence there.

Isn't it amazing how the invisible and the non-existent look so similar?

I have to agree with you there, we could call that the 'ostrich syndrome'. Out of sight, out of mind.

You may call it 'ostrich syndrome' - I call it an 'opinion'.

But to those that are willing to accept it, the evidence is overwhelming, but to those who do not want to accept it, there is no convincing evidence.

The gap between those two is made up of faith. And I use the term with no equivocation.

May you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful

You used the word 'equivocation' twice in this post, but I could not figure out what you meant by it. Can you give me your definition of the word?

Many of a religious bent use the word 'faith' rather loosely - seeing 'faith' that the brakes on the car will work as being the same as 'faith' in a belief system that incorporates the supernatural. That is an equivocation.

Thank you for the blessing, and may God bless you also.