Why doesn’t everyone believe in God?.....

[ProximaCentauri]

You forget one thing (and let's be clear that it’s meaningless to point this out to someone that doesn’t believe)… This is HIS creation. According to the bible, the first act of violence was committed by man. Over and over again God gave man opportunities to adhere to some pretty simple rules God set up. But, man doesn’t like rules. The immorality is man’s rejection of God, in spite of all the fact that it is God that gave man life to begin with.

So the universe was created with you in mind, eh? And, the 'god' of the known universe is interested in you personally, and especially interested in what you do while naked? Not to worry, you're in good company with these beliefs, the Muslims hold these 'truths' to be sacred as well.

You’ve chosen to apply a humanistic understand of what this God is; that you know more about what God’s intentions are than God himself.

Nope. Since there is no objective evidence for this god's existence - or any one of the thousands of imagined gods - there simply exists no good reason to 'believe'. Understand that basing one's life on a 'belief', for which there is no evidence, shows ignorance in any facet of your life - including religion. But you think it normal because that's the culture you were born into. It's a culturally induced and self-induced delusion, nothing more. You fail to grasp that you would be practicing Hinduism had you been brought up in India. You fail to grasp that religions are man-made. You are a typical American, unfortunately. Canadians, Australians, and the majority of western Europe are "growing up" much quicker than Muricans in that regard.

 

[This_person]

So what I'm hearing is that there's a chance that Heaven will have strippers and blackjack.

Why not?

 

[This_person]

But you think it normal because that's the culture you were born into. It's a culturally induced and self-induced delusion, nothing more. You fail to grasp that you would be practicing Hinduism had you been brought up in India. You fail to grasp that religions are man-made. You are a typical American, unfortunately. Canadians, Australians, and the majority of western Europe are "growing up" much quicker than Muricans in that regard.

If it's purely cultural, why don't you believe? Do you think you have been given the ability to think and Psy, me, many others have not been given that ability? Do you not see that it is our experiences and our thought processes that brought us to the conclusion God does exist?

 

[Chuckt]

Chuckt, you can't be brazen enough to refute the god-directed killings and genocide in the OT?

You're looking at it through a lens and without background information.

 

[Gilligan]

You're looking at it through a lens and without background information.

"background information"??.....

 

[Chuckt]

Slavery was accepted and tacitly condoned in the New Testament; Jesus does not speak out against it. What is your apologetic response to Jesus's ignorance of the inhumaneness of slavery?

Slavery of the Bible is not the slavery of the 18th century because it was voluntary.

Start here:

http://godwords.org/515/does-the-old-testament-condone-slavery/
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201102/201102_108_slavery.htm.cfm

I will look up my files and I have probably over 14,000 files.

 

[Chuckt]

Ok. Found my file

THE BIBLE ACTUALLY CONDEMNS AND DENOUNCES WHAT HAPPENED WITH BLACK SLAVERY IN AMERICA.

because the fact of the matter is that:

Slavery in the Bible was based on CRIME AND DEBT.

NOT skin color.


Just like even a person who is in prison TODAY, for committing a crime, and is locked up, and bound to the State,

and is, in effect, a "slave" to the state.

Don't kid yourself into thinking different.

crime and punishment. and bond-debts.

check it

Remember how prisoners used to make license plates. They had NO CHOICE in doing that. Today they're made to do other work, such as renovations, construction, and clean-ups after natural disasters such as hurricanes.


These things are NOT "options" for these prisoners. They're MADE to do these things.

Prisoners are in effect "slaves" to the STATE. Just because that term is not generally used for prisoners, don't fool yourself into thinking that that is not, in effect, what it is, and what's going on here. Freedom is restricted, and controlled, and they're ordered around, and told what to do and when to do it, with NO choice in the matter, and no real way out of it.

Prisoners are FORCED to make shoes. And items that will be sold in stores. For either slave dog wages or no wages at all. Did you know that? They have no choice. Do you weep for these prisoners? Armed robbers, drug dealers, rapists, and burglars?

CRIME AND DEBT, KIDS.... servitude to the Courts, Cops, and Government, and State. Who are we kidding ???? THAT'S SLAVERY !!!!! and it's warranted.

If someone robs your house, or beats up your father, or snatches your grandmother's purse on the street and then knocks her to the ground, or deals cocaine to your teenage son, or constantly drunk-drives and hurts and maims people, etcetcetc, THAT PERSON NEEDS TO BE IMPRISONED AND FORCED TO WORK FOR THE STATE AND MAKE RESTITUTION.

the principle is there, and the reality is there, and there's no escaping it. And most Atheists AGREE with it. And actually WANT it.

But they just never thought to call it "slavery." EVEN THOUGH THAT'S REALLY EXACTLY WHAT IT IS IN PRINCIPLE. BOND-SERVICE TO THE STATE. Wake up.

-Myspace post from unknown author

The article I have is about 26 pages long and this is only a portion.

 

[Gilligan]

-Myspace post from unknown author

Smokin' great backup source material, Chuck ole boy. Good show! One step above the writing on the stalls in a public restroom, I'd say.

Meanwhile....

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3027

 

[Chuckt]

Smokin' great backup source material, Chuck ole boy. Good show! One step above the writing on the stalls in a public restroom, I'd say.

Meanwhile....

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3027

Scholars are on Facebook and allowed to use the web. Some scholars use Wikipedia too.

I know that ignorant people used the Bible to condone and promote slavery.

1 Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

You can fool most of the people most of the time but slavery is called "menstealers".

Outline of Biblical Usage

1.a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer

1.of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery

2.of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them

http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G405&t=KJV

Justified slavery of the 18th century is nothing more than taking the Bible out of context and allowed by the ignorant masses that didn't know their Bible.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

If it's purely cultural, why don't you believe? Do you think you have been given the ability to think and Psy, me, many others have not been given that ability? Do you not see that it is our experiences and our thought processes that brought us to the conclusion God does exist?

I simply choose to base my life on objective reality, and you do not. There is no compelling evidence or reason for me (or anyone for that matter) to believe in an imaginary deity.

That the universe and sentient life within it should require a 'creator', is the product of the human psyche to soothe existential angst, and to quell the fear of the finality of death. In the 21st century, assuming your life is generally good, i.e. you are not living a 3rd world existence, your belief is generally driven by a human desire for immortality and by indoctrination into the religion of your birth region from a very young age.

The inane ancient texts of the Bible (or the Quran) are a testament to human ignorance of that age. No excuse exists anymore, to persist in this ignorance in the 21st century. That said, we have inherited brain physiology and neurology from our hominid ancestors who exhibited a propensity to believe in myth, in an effort to make 'sense' of the violent physical world in which they lived, without the scientific knowledge we have today. This predisposition to 'believe' in myth can be overcome.

 

[This_person]

I simply choose to base my life on objective reality, and you do not. There is no compelling evidence or reason for me (or anyone for that matter) to believe in an imaginary deity.

Do you have any idea how both arrogant and idiotic that is to say? That YOU are objective and I am not, that YOU don't have reason, so therefore I should not have a reason? You are flat wrong on both of those things, just so you know. I fully believe you when you say you have no reason - that's easy to glean from your writing. I do have a lot of reasons, but I suspect they're matured beyond your ability to comprehend.

That the universe and sentient life within it should require a 'creator', is the product of the human psyche to soothe existential angst, and to quell the fear of the finality of death. In the 21st century, assuming your life is generally good, i.e. you are not living a 3rd world existence, your belief is generally driven by a human desire for immortality and by indoctrination into the religion of your birth region from a very young age.

Now, after telling me I have no reason, you're going to tell me what my reason is? Again, the arrogance of that is astounding!

There is more than the universe, that is inherently obvious. The universe clearly has not always existed, because there is no such thing as always because time is a construct of the universe. Whether the universe is expanding or contracting (depending on which scientist you read and the information they choose to use), the implication is there is somewhere into which the universe may expand, or something created by the contraction. At some point, there had to be a non-existence of the universe for it to have an "age" (even though there was a point where the universe existed yet time did not) - so what about then? From where did the matter that makes up the universe come? Belief in a creator is not only required, it is obvious to even a casual observer.

The inane ancient texts of the Bible (or the Quran) are a testament to human ignorance of that age. No excuse exists anymore, to persist in this ignorance in the 21st century. That said, we have inherited brain physiology and neurology from our hominid ancestors who exhibited a propensity to believe in myth, in an effort to make 'sense' of the violent physical world in which they lived, without the scientific knowledge we have today. This predisposition to 'believe' in myth can be overcome.

Yes, but it should not. We can, socially, convince ourselves of anything if we try hard enough. However, we should look at the evidence.

I will ask you this - can you show me the peer-reviewed and repeatable study wherein the absence of everything was modified to become a universe? Provide me that, and i'll show you a scientist who became a creator. But, since I am 100% certain you cannot show me that, you are spouting more bull#### than you think a believer spouts, because you KNOW what you look to for an answer doesn't provide one, can't provide one, because one does not exist in the construct you've determined to be the way to answer all questions. So, instead of acknowledging the ultimate failure of your god, science, you attack both the belief system and believers of an alternate way of looking at things.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Do you have any idea how both arrogant and idiotic that is to say? That YOU are objective and I am not, that YOU don't have reason, so therefore I should not have a reason? You are flat wrong on both of those things, just so you know. I fully believe you when you say you have no reason - that's easy to glean from your writing. I do have a lot of reasons, but I suspect they're matured beyond your ability to comprehend.Now, after telling me I have no reason, you're going to tell me what my reason is? Again, the arrogance of that is astounding!.

Your belief has nothing to do with objective reality - that's why it's referred to as faith. No reason to get angry over it, rather you should just own your 'belief' and dispense with the righteous indignation.

There is more than the universe, that is inherently obvious. The universe clearly has not always existed, because there is no such thing as always because time is a construct of the universe. Whether the universe is expanding or contracting (depending on which scientist you read and the information they choose to use), the implication is there is somewhere into which the universe may expand, or something created by the contraction. At some point, there had to be a non-existence of the universe for it to have an "age" (even though there was a point where the universe existed yet time did not) - so what about then? From where did the matter that makes up the universe come? Belief in a creator is not only required, it is obvious to even a casual observer.Yes, but it should not. We can, socially, convince ourselves of anything if we try hard enough. However, we should look at the evidence.

Perhaps you should inquire with the National Academy of Science to see if they can put you on the lecture schedule. I'm sure your casual observations will be a big hit. Don't be disappointed however if they don't agree that belief in a creator is 'required'.

I will ask you this - can you show me the peer-reviewed and repeatable study wherein the absence of everything was modified to become a universe? Provide me that, and i'll show you a scientist who became a creator. But, since I am 100% certain you cannot show me that, you are spouting more bull#### than you think a believer spouts, because you KNOW what you look to for an answer doesn't provide one, can't provide one, because one does not exist in the construct you've determined to be the way to answer all questions. So, instead of acknowledging the ultimate failure of your god, science, you attack both the belief system and believers of an alternate way of looking at things.[/QUOTE]

Science is not a 'belief' system. If you personally choose not to 'believe' in science, and in certain arenas, to believe in 'faith' instead, most scientists could care less - that is unless you decide to radicalize yourself in the religion of your choice and become a problem to society. The difference between someone of your belief and an Astrophysicist, is they get up every morning open to what the universe will reveal to them that day. You on the other hand, seem to have it all figured out.

 

[This_person]

Your belief has nothing to do with objective reality - that's why it's referred to as faith. No reason to get angry over it, rather you should just own your 'belief' and dispense with the righteous indignation.

I'm not angry over my beliefs, I'm offended by your arrogance. I fully own my belief system. I know the limits of my faith in being able to practically prove it. Do you know the limits of yours?

Perhaps you should inquire with the National Academy of Science to see if they can put you on the lecture schedule. I'm sure your casual observations will be a big hit. Don't be disappointed however if they don't agree that belief in a creator is 'required'.

More believers were born from scientists than probably any other profession. But, you did just prove you don't know the limits of your belief system.

Science is not a 'belief' system. If you personally choose not to 'believe' in science, and in certain arenas, to believe in 'faith' instead, most scientists could care less - that is unless you decide to radicalize yourself in the religion of your choice and become a problem to society. The difference between someone of your belief and an Astrophysicist, is they get up every morning open to what the universe will reveal to them that day. You on the other hand, seem to have it all figured out.

I actually fully accept science, and its limits. Science IS a belief system for everything that is not yet proven, everything that cannot be tested. The birth of the universe cannot be tested, so we simply believe, based on the evidence at hand, what may (or may not) have happened. My examples to you were founded in scientific theories and accepted beliefs of the current day - and they're entirely inconclusive. Do you get that? Do you know that science is not even close to having it figured out, and once they do, still can't say what happened pre-universe or outside the universe? Do you realize its just a bunch of people thinking they have it all figured out?

 

[ProximaCentauri]

I actually fully accept science, and its limits. Science IS a belief system for everything that is not yet proven, everything that cannot be tested. The birth of the universe cannot be tested, so we simply believe, based on the evidence at hand, what may (or may not) have happened. My examples to you were founded in scientific theories and accepted beliefs of the current day - and they're entirely inconclusive. Do you get that? Do you know that science is not even close to having it figured out, and once they do, still can't say what happened pre-universe or outside the universe? Do you realize its just a bunch of people thinking they have it all figured out?

Theory, hypothesis, and the scientific method of establishing and validating models that describe nature and the universe should not be confused with or compared to a religious styled 'belief' or 'belief system'. This should be obvious but apparently is not. Science is ever evolving, and the limits of science today will not be the limits of science tomorrow. Conversely, religion makes truth claims with no evidence, and is limited by its dogma. Religious 'beliefs' and dogmas have no utility in advancing knowledge, or advancing civilization. Religion is retrograde to both.

The argument you've been using is referred to as 'God of the Gaps' argument, i.e., god fills the gaps in scientific understanding - a favorite of religious types. To say that science cannot disprove the existence of 'god', therefore he exists, or the universe must have a 'creator', is a non-sequitur argument. It's incumbent on religion to prove its own claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan

As I alluded to before, if you wish to hold a 'belief' for which no objective evidence exists, it does no one any harm unless you radicalize and subsequently attempt to impose your beliefs on others by force. Otherwise, knock yourself out, 'believe' in anything you want...just remember, if faith is ever right about anything, it's right by accident.

It's happy hour and I 'believe' I'll have a bourbon

 

[Gilligan]

It's happy hour and I 'believe' I'll have a bourbon

"A man's gotta believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer." -anon

 

[Amused_despair]

Theory, hypothesis, and the scientific method of establishing and validating models that describe nature and the universe should not be confused with or compared to a religious styled 'belief' or 'belief system'. This should be obvious but apparently is not. Science is ever evolving, and the limits of science today will not be the limits of science tomorrow. Conversely, religion makes truth claims with no evidence, and is limited by its dogma. Religious 'beliefs' and dogmas have no utility in advancing knowledge, or advancing civilization. Religion is retrograde to both.

The argument you've been using is referred to as 'God of the Gaps' argument, i.e., god fills the gaps in scientific understanding - a favorite of religious types. To say that science cannot disprove the existence of 'god', therefore he exists, or the universe must have a 'creator', is a non-sequitur argument. It's incumbent on religion to prove its own claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan

As I alluded to before, if you wish to hold a 'belief' for which no objective evidence exists, it does no one any harm unless you radicalize and subsequently attempt to impose your beliefs on others by force. Otherwise, knock yourself out, 'believe' in anything you want...just remember, if faith is ever right about anything, it's right by accident.

It's happy hour and I 'believe' I'll have a bourbon

A belief is something that requires faith. If you need proof to validate your belief then what you have is a lack of faith. Do not look to science for your God, look to yourself.

 

[Chuckt]

I simply choose to base my life on objective reality, and you do not. There is no compelling evidence or reason for me (or anyone for that matter) to believe in an imaginary deity.

That the universe and sentient life within it should require a 'creator', is the product of the human psyche to soothe existential angst, and to quell the fear of the finality of death. In the 21st century, assuming your life is generally good, i.e. you are not living a 3rd world existence, your belief is generally driven by a human desire for immortality and by indoctrination into the religion of your birth region from a very young age.

The inane ancient texts of the Bible (or the Quran) are a testament to human ignorance of that age. No excuse exists anymore, to persist in this ignorance in the 21st century. That said, we have inherited brain physiology and neurology from our hominid ancestors who exhibited a propensity to believe in myth, in an effort to make 'sense' of the violent physical world in which they lived, without the scientific knowledge we have today. This predisposition to 'believe' in myth can be overcome.

The scientific theories of the past have all failed except the ones we have today. Newtonian Physics is good enough to go to the moon but it totally fails when it comes to Einsteinian Physics.
And since there have been seven or eight paradigm shifts in the theory of the Universe and the one we have today might be replaced by a better one, you take it on faith that your science is 100% accurate when it might not be.
Your theories are missing someone who sustains and has to maintain this universe.

 

[Gilligan]

The scientific theories of the past have all failed except the ones we have today. Newtonian Physics is good enough to go to the moon but it totally fails when it comes to Einsteinian Physics.
And since there have been seven or eight paradigm shifts in the theory of the Universe and the one we have today might be replaced by a better one, you take it on faith that your science is 100% accurate when it might not be.
Your theories are missing someone who sustains and has to maintain this universe.

OMFG. I've heard you freaks existed...but this it the first direct evidence I've seen with my own eyes.

 

[littlelady]

OMFG. I've heard you freaks existed...but this it the first direct evidence I've seen with my own eyes.

When I read your post, Scientology guru Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's tv program couch came to mind. I don't know why!

 

[Chuckt]

OMFG. I've heard you freaks existed...but this it the first direct evidence I've seen with my own eyes.

[video=youtube;tYIuXHzQHo8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYIuXHzQHo8[/video]