Technically speaking we should all remain agnostic about the God hypothesis until all of the evidence is in. In the same manner that we should also technically remain agnostic towards fairies and leprechauns and goblins and unicorns. Since we cannot disprove any of these things we have to instead measure their likeliness of existence on a scale of probability. So although an atheist may simplify the language and "reject" or "deny" God altogether, the atheist in this case is more accurately describing God's existence as being "highly improbable". It its current form this is the best Atheism can achieve. In the real world however, I do not think many people would seriously advance an argument of agnostism towards fairies. I think most people would quite happily deny their existence. In this way, I think the same can apply for God. Hence we have atheism and the "stronger" version antitheism.

:edit:
For those interested I recommend listening to Colin Mcginn a british philosopher talk about atheism. He has some interesting opinions. In fact for those of you that have a few hours of spare time I recommend watching the entire series. A 3 part BBC program on the history of atheism.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v305743JaZKNJTT

By self-worth, I mean being free of the need for an imaginary savior.

I've done plenty evaluation of Christianity, thank you very much. Used to be one for, oh, 4-5 years (and not the crazy tongue-speaking snake-dancing kind either).

You say that these people who speak in the Holy Spirit aren't really "Christian" and that they're a "cult" that uses "non-biblical practices." Well, who the fuck are you to judge whether a person is Christian or not? To say this group is a cult is ridiculous; did you not read the part where I said a SENATOR and the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE STATE went to it to give speeches?? How in the world can you just dismiss them as a weird Christian cult? The number of Christians who believe like they do probably outnumber the Christians who believe like you do; they have the majority, so aren't they the true Christians with the true message?

My point is, Christianity means what you want it to mean. You, LordsSword, like to pretend that Christianity is a clear-cut religion. You say it's a religion that has clear rules and clear morals and clear messages. This is completely incorrect, as demonstrated by the number of Christians who think they can speak in tongues, the number of Christians who dance around with snakes, the number of Christians who think missionary work is necessary to get into heaven, the number of Christians who think the Pope is infallible. There are so many different interpretations of Christianity, so many variations, so many different moral codes, yet you have the audacity to claim that you're little own denomination has a monopoly on the truth? Please, let your ego deflate a little bit.

Like I said earlier, exchanging drugs for God is just exchanging one imaginary savior for another imaginary savior (though one is less fatal in most cases). You're still dependent on something saving your soul and/or your body; it's an escape from the cold reality that you find overwhelming. Life can easily overwhelm us, but running away to a drug or a Religion isn't the answer we should seek.

In cases like these, we should use Occams razor. As humans, shouldn't we probably instead focus upon tangibles? That seems prudent to me, as we ourselves are tangible forms. That is, is it truly necessary to create unnecessary principles out of thin air and half believe in them, half not?

We can't assume that anything/everything is possible simply because it hasn't/can't be disproven. As sentient beings, we are ignorant by design. We are no less so by maintaining a middle ground position. There is more of a case, it would seem to me, to not believe in something, than to believe in something unnecessarily.

The problem is that in order to disprove something, it has to exist in some form, therein lies the rub. If it isn't tangible in any way, than there is no measure in finding out the probabilities. Anything existing beyond our space and our time, would be unfathomable to us in the first place and rather untestable. A God that exists in this realm would be without ability for any of us to interpret let alone record as a historical figure. So how then do we know claim to know so much about this God, if he exists beyond space and time?

I am sure it is in uncovering questions like these where the idea of faith holds most precedence in theological 'proofs'. Faith is believing in a principle that doesn't exist. Why are we asked to do this? This isn't fair to humans. It disregards the capacity for their potential and writes off an explanation for their impending sense of failure, doom and immiment dissolution from an otherwise tangible landscape. The merits of anything's existence, whatever it is we are discussing, should stem from its existence, not the possibility of its existence.

That being said, I can't call myself a true atheist.

Interesting! I will be sure to check this out when I have some time. :)

Christian here...and 'religion' is more my life. I've heard many times how people claim there's no 'evidence' of God might find it difficult to comprehend the Chrisitan faith, but I do believe that there's plenty of evidence that He exists! I mean, phsyical evidence aside (of which I would use the creation itself as evidence, but ignore this for now), I think the lives of many around teh world, rich or poor, educated or illiterate are evidence enough that a God exists. There's just too much to ignore in many ppls lives to discount God... I dunno, i find this topic so hard to explain with a post... but take the time to consider how many ppl with seemingly nohting in this world (particularly those in third world countries) can still live with hope, faith and joy... i find it hard to believe that Christianity is just a farce promoted by a bunch of ppl as they say... it wouldn't hold in hardships if that were teh case...

Wow, see, this is why I don't like Christians. Already I've been mislabeled and now I'm being told that there's no hope without a supreme being. And, yet, I am the one with the weak mind.

I agree with Arainach. Yeah, I don't believe in "God" doesn't mean I believe there isn't one at all. I haven't been given empirical evidence to support either claim.

Why do you need God to motivate you to do the right thing and not just do it out of the fact that it's generally a good thing to not cause harm/hardship for other human beings?

I find there is, in fact, more hope and satisaction without the existence of a god, or at least, not one as pervasive/intrusive as the Christian God.

First of all, you really should read up on the differences between Atheists and Agnostics.

Secondly, we generally don't have a core "belief" system, other than maybe Humanism. Which is pretty much adherence to the "Golden Rule." Because, I wouldn't really like it if I worked hard and people just try to bring each other down by stealing, raping, killing, lying, cheating, subjugating and just generally being an asshole toward other people indiscriminately.

Again, I'm agnostic, not an atheist, and atheism doesn't really have any attendant philosophies other than "god doesn't exist."

However, since I've removed the cloud of religious dogma from my mind, I try to look at things empirically, or logically, to produce the solution which brings about the greatest result. Sometimes it's something relatively simple like hedonistic calculus, "whatever action produces the greatest benefit/happiness for the greatest number of people is the correct action."

Generally, having goals and educating yourself is the formula for a productive member of society. Self-motivation goes a long way, in fact, I feel it's the only motivation that truly exists. The happiness and welfare of those close to me and by extention, the human race, is a goal that most if not all of us can be motivated by. It benefits us as well as everyone else. To better oneself is to help better the society.

Good actions: Those which benefit the self and the other. Or, at least benefit the self without hindering/imposing or harming the other.

Bad actions: Those which cause harm, hinder or impose upon the other.

Neutral actions: those which could cause harm to the self, but one is willing to personally bear the consequence of said actions, if any.

I do have a problem with people lying, cheating, stealing, raping, killing, etc.

I don't really have a problem with people's lifestyle choices: sexual preferences, drug/alcohol/tobacco usage, mode of dress, anything related to matters of self-expression (speech, media, etc.).

It not me its the book ->1 Corinthians 14:5. I go by the book and it doesnt say I have to blabber in a special way to show that I am bound for heaven.
I claim no denomination, I just read the book-->Luke 10:27 . The anciant european crusaders were "christian" too but they didnt love their neighbor. The label of Christian does not conform to what you put it on, its all about the book.

Man, I type all that up and no response. No, "Hey, thanks man, it was nice that you took the time to answer my burning questions," or "Ah, yeah okay, I understand that, but what about... [more questions]?"

I thought that's what discussion was about, man.

It's mean nothing to me.
If you're good people and help people sometimes when they need,then you don't need to go to temple or church.:)
Once I was reading my books for the next day examination and I still had to do it for a long long day(May be all night,I'm on Midicine block at that time), someone knocked my door and they're christian who want a new member or something like that.They asked me for my time and I gave them.Time pasted about 20 minutes and I still be patientd and then they said if I don't believed in God,I won't be in heaven in my after life........so my patient gone and I asked them politely to continue my reading (but on my mind,I think "so be it").They still haunted me 1 week after that,lol.
I beleived in morality not in god.

Hey, thanks Duo, it was nice that you took the time to answer that guy's burning questions.

Or

Ah, yeah, okay, he understands that, but what about how he was totally misinformed and insinuating that morality comes from dogmatic law and dogmatic law only, basically stating that prior to the (possible) existence of Jesus Christ, everyone was amoral and kind of a jerk, because they weren't really christians in the modern sense? How about that, Duo Maxwell?

The art of diplomacy, by Deni Kissinger.

Orthodox Christian on paper here.
Only my documents say that I'm a follower of the eastern church, but I for myself give a crap about it. I believe neither in gods nor in other supernatural things.

I knew it would be but its the truth. Matthew 11:25
1 Corinthians 2:14

Sorry, I only had a few minutes to visit last time. I'm glad you are interested.


Prior to my statement of "no hope" I didn't see any signs of any, so I put that out there to goad you into showing your deal. When you say you dont like Christians, I can tell. As a Christian I am required to be the opposite I am supposed to love you no matter what and if it could fix things I will apologize for my own actions and the actions of every christian you have met that has not shown you the respect you deserve. I will be the first to admit that we suck when it comes to sharing our faith & living it correctly. I heard a statement made by Ghandi once "I like their christ but not the christian" I think the guy had a point, but I am still here to do my part to make things right and work through error and success. Be you angry or content I benefit from your reactions.

Without God I have more reasons to just take care of my own interests. From time to time I volunteer to help other Christians from other churches in my town with the work of aiding homeless people. It can be hard work but the bible says there is additional rewards for helping people especially the poor. Matthew 6:19-20
Before I was into the bible I was extremely selfish. My time was often wasted on things I can't even remember anymore. After I started volunteer work people told me my character had changed for the better.


I can agree with this. It irritates me when the religious types try to scare others with the threat of HELL to get motivation. I don't fear hell, I just want as many people I meet to come to heaven with me.

So, here's the verses since you didn't post it:

1 Cor 14:4 "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified."

These people blabbering in a special way are doing so because of these verses. They're edifying themselves, according to scripture. My argument was not that you need to blabber in tongues to get into heaven, my argument was that people who blab in tongues think it's the HOLY SPIRIT speaking through them, which is supported by these verses you so kindly pointed out (and other verses I can point out if necessary).

Of course, the author of these verses would rather have you prophecy instead of speak in tongues. I mean, obviously it's much easier and more beneficial to pretend your a fucking prophet then to pretend you're a vessel for the Holy Spirit. Tell me LordsSword, do you consider yourself a prophet or a vessel? I mean, you obviously have to be one of the two when looking at these verses.

My point stands: Christians, according to scripture, can certainly babble out in gibberish thinking the Holy Spirit is speaking through them. Scripture supports temporary insanity.

I don't care if you claim a denomination or not; you're still in one whether you like it or not. Call it your own personal denomination, I don't give shit. The point is that it's still your interpretation of the Bible verses every other possible interpretation of the Bible, ever.

Also, you say the crusaders weren't Christian because they didn't "love their neighbor." Well, a strong case can be made that when Jesus spoke those words he was speaking within the context of inclusive community. In other words, the Jews were their neighbors, not the Gentiles. And I don't care if you don't agree with this interpretation. All that matters is that this interpretation exists, so the "truth" of the matter is up for grabs.

Like I said earlier, there is no "true" Christian message, only various personal interpretations.

There's a difference between being self-interested and being self-absorbed. Acting in your best interests is a healthy, productive habit. What most people have trouble with is actually identifying that which is actually in their best interest. Volunteering your efforts in the service of the whole is actually in most people's best interest. However, erecting financial hegemonies which thrive on maintaining an undereducated, poor working class maybe profitable, but not actually in one's best interest (he says as he notices a can full of worms falling to the floor).

I'm no prophet. I'd fail the Deuteronomy 13 test but every believer in Jesus is a vessel Acts 2:38. You could be as well since you have taken such a heated interest in my posts.

My issue with the babblers is that they dont follow ALL of the instructions in the book. Notice there are plenty of those with something to blabber about but there are no intrepetors <1 Corinthians 14:13> to be found to make their speech usable for others.

This is the true christian mesage> John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

If this isn't the true christian message then how do you come to your conclusion?

I understand this. Unlike you I had nothing but the drive of appetite and my pride as my source of direction prior to my conversion. There was a time when I gave Mojo Jojo a run for his money when it came to the ego. I would have laughed at any persons attempts of gaining morality through logic.
I'm serious, I was as corrupt as they come and knowing the depth of evil I had reached, I conclude that trying to pin the "dark side" in that way is futile. It looks good in words but when life happens we find that it is much harder to live by any standard that is known only to ourselves.

The bible convicts me in a way that reinforces my conscience. Plus I can't change the words as I get older. I also belong to a group of people who hold me accountable to my lifestyle. Finally, after my acceptance of Jesus through prayer I started seeing evidence of Acts 2:38 and other biblical concepts at work in my life. This is the line that I invite all of you to cross so you can see for yourself. If its not true then the prayer of asking "Jesus to be Lord and savior" is just words having no effect, if it is the truth then.....

Man sometimes I feel like Morpheus trying to hand out the pills in the Matrix movie. I like that movie, its full of biblical concepts.
http://www.whysanity.net/monos/matrix3.html

Did you just compare yourself to the prophet archetype? Sweet Evil Monkey Descended Christ, son. That is so fucking arrogant. Also, the Matrix was filled with philosophical references, chief. It just so happens a lot of early work they did was focused on religion.

That's like saying that Tolkien was writing religion because some people find allegory in it. Shut up.

No I don't see myself in that way. My religion has this command that I carry out >Mark 16:15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.

Like the Matrix movie character I present my case for freedom. Thats how I see it. The concept that people are made slaves (2 Peter 2:19) is a reality that I identify with. I was a slave to drugs & pride like my parents were and the bible gave me freedom that I like to present to others. It pains me to see one of my old buddies still drinking himself numb and driving when he shouldn't. I do what I can but some folks don't want to swallow what the bible says even if it would save their life.

The problem with comparing something like Christianity to The Matrix is that The Matrix is a movie, it had one well-defined outcome, at least, from the first one.

Basically, there are a lot more variables in real-life than in a work of fiction, even a well-crafted work of fiction.

I could make some reference to how I feel I hold the key to people's freedom. Then again, I'm not really a prophet, I'm just a dude on the internets.

You misunderstood my use of the word "vessel." I used the word to represent allowing the holy spirit to talk through you in tongues, as per described in the verses you pointed out. I'll reword my question to you to be more clear: Do you prophecy or do you speak in tongues?

So you think if there was someone listening to their babble and trying to explain to everybody what it means, it would become more legitimate?

And speaking of rules the church doesn't follow check out this one in the very same chapter:

1 Cor. 14:34 As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

So pray tell, which rules out of this chapter of Corinthians should we follow and which ones should we ignore? Maybe an interpreter for tongues isn't so important anymore. I mean hell, we let women talk in church now.

Unfortunately, such a tidy little verse has many, many undertones to it that many Christians are divided on. It's easy to say "believe in Jesus" but what exactly does that mean? Do we have to act like him too? Most say yes. Do we have to give up all our money to the poor like him? Most say no. Do we reject our parents as strangers like he did? Most say no. Do we show miracles like speaking in tongues and do we prophecy like He did? Not any more, most say. Do we live according to Jewish law or not? Did He really abolish it? Some say no, some say yes. Is it necessary to believe in a physical resurrection or is simply a spiritual resurrection good enough? Most say you need the physical. Do we have to pray for forgiveness every night? Every week? Every month? How often? If you die with sins on your soul do you go to hell, or can you ask for forgiveness when you're up on the judgement throne? Most are divided on the issue. Was Jesus born the son of God, or did He become the son of God when baptized by John? Who knows. Is there really a Trinity or were those verses added by the Church? A case can be made for it being a purposefully misleading addition. Does faith or works save our soul? Even the disciples themselves were divided on the issue according to scripture.

Suffice it to say, most Christians think these questions have clear, obvious answers and are the foundation of what it means to "believe in Jesus" even though they themselves are divided on the issues. Many of these questions do not have clear answers, especially considering how we're currently ignoring how shakey the authorship of the scriptures are to begin with.

Good gawd, people. Why, when discussing theology, do all of you suddenly become huge proponents of subjectivity in study? Do you all act this irritatingly when considering non-religious history? When you read a novel about which the author has expressed his/her thoughts, do you reject all sense and educated discussion regarding themes, intent, and narrative because "there's no way that I can REALLY know!"

I get it; you're goading Lord's Sword. That doesn't mean that you need to act silly about whether or not educated opinions have merit over uneducated ones. As with any other subject, vagueness exists, but most can be inferred from those who have dedicated their lives to the matter.

^^^Which is exactly why threads like this are doomed from the beginning.

No i'm not gifted in this area. I do have a friend who has a grasp on prophecy though.


If the resulting translation is in alignment with biblical texts, yes.

Earlier I told someone to ask Jesus for the answer. I invite you to do the same thing. My intent in stating this, is for you to first get rid of you preconceived notions of how things should be. If you can't do that then please don't ask any more questions.

The again, if you are willing lets pay attention to what Jesus has to say
Matt 22:36-40 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Its not about ignoring a biblical prescription of how a church should be run. You must first know the primary intent upon which the writing is built on.
The command for women to be silent was necessary for the times and people in which the texts were written for or it would not have come up. We weren't there to know what the people were like, I do know that the women of that day may not have had much to offer considering that they did not have the same educational opportunities as men. Based on what Jesus has to say, the intent of the author was in the best interest of the organization so that people can be taught from the best sources.

For too long, I know that the book is used as a tool for dominating people & beating them down instead of loving them & building people up. Many here see how a Christian acts and assumes that the bible encourages such behavior. Your assumptions are based on a lack of bible knowledge.

True we are divided but not because of the bible. The book calls for unity >Ephesians 4:3-6<
but people go their own way.



Its ok, they are actually proving my book right. John 15:18-21
I'm getting lots of practice too PRAISE GOD.

Unity with compromise, isn't really unity.

The bible is incredibly self-contradicting, but if focusing on the New Testament then it really does suggest unity amongst all people. Even if I didn't have a fundamental lack of faith anyway, I would still shun religion as a whole, not because of the lack of ideals (there are plenty and for the most part, make sense) but because of the way people bicker about it. Religion could be a unifying ideal if people took heed of what is being said. "Love thy neighbour" has certainly been left in the dark for a long time.

I think Faith is a fine thing, but a personal thing. I consider all organized religions inherently evil because they basically consist of telling other people what they should be feeling. I consider pretty much all organized religions no better than cults. As far as I'm concerned, people can worship whatever Gods they want or have their own beliefs on their own time, but when you're sitting here listening to money-grubbing politicians priests telling you the will of "God" instead of feeling your own spirituality, that's wrong. At that point, churches have just turned into PACs.