I originally said "as long as those beliefs do not call for the hurting of others."

Capo, I wish God gave me (or was born with, either way) the brain and energy to debate the way you do. Honestly I feel overwhelmed by your posts. It's not that I don't have questions and comments for each of your statements, I just don't have the time and energy to do so. Working a hard 10-12 hours a day and coming home to a demanding family wears me out. I promise I will try to respond to what you've said. Your thoughts aren't being ignored.

I also want you to know that I find what you have to say very interesting, minus the indirect personal insults like the several "horseshit" references among others. I seriously hope we get to meet in person someday because I think having a few drinks and having a face-to-face discussion about this sort of thing would be more beneficial, for me anyway, in that I can stop you after each point and discuss/counter question. I look forward to that day if it ever happens

SB, You were not in the least. If you think you were, then I must have been as well rude to you, but I honestly was trying to debate about beliefs. You mocked a belief of mine and I strongly believe that beliefs are detached from people, so it is all right to do so. It is not like we are born with them or we couldn't change them. we think and adopt them as we go through life. They should be debated, occasionally laughed at, get hammered, get polished, and by all means be defended.

I confess that maybe mocking is not the wisest way to go when you try to persuade people to change their beliefs, as it seems our beliefs define us after a while, but I really don't think it should be off limits. We are the one in charge, beliefs could change.

As well as always, I respect and esteem you deeply. I hope you know that.

Well, this thread has gone peaceful quite suddenly! I feel like I need to call someone a [BadWord] to get things back on track

Settle down ...you [BadWord]

Fisticuffs time... good thing my nails are sharp.

Then 'God' as an idea becomes interchangeable with 'Nature' or 'Causality' or 'The Way Things Are And Will Always Be No Matter What Happens', as I've said. 'God' ceases to be the morally conscious intervenor; just a word, but socially and intellectually redundant.

But yeah, looking around us, the world is a strange, mysterious, beautiful place, full of wonder and horror and contradictions - in themselves wonderful and horrific. Life is precious, even when we're 'down'.

Happy New Year y'all. Here's to a cracking 2010...

Just like George Carlin, I believe in Joe Pesci because he looks like a guy who can get things done.

No I do not believe in god.

I want nothing to do with religion as I hate it with a passion.

Yo Capo, give me a beat [BadWord]

I've finished a new album!

January 2, 2010 5:27 a.m. EST

(CNN) -- An Irish atheist group has published a series of quotations on religion in an attempt to challenge a blasphemy law that went into effect on New Year's Day. Lawmakers in staunchly Catholic Ireland passed the law in July, but it came into force January 1.

A person breaks the law by saying or publishing anything "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion."

The 25 "blasphemous" quotations include the words of Jesus, Mohammed, Mark Twain, Salman Rushdie and Bjork.

Atheist Ireland published the list on its Web site Friday. It says it aims to challenge the law, which makes blasphemy a crime punishable by a €25,000-($35,800) fine.

"Despite these quotes being abusive and insulting in relation to matters held sacred by various religions, we unreservedly support the right of these people to have published or uttered them," the group said on the site.

Well, the foregoing should prove to be ample grist for some Board members' mills.

Jesus was black!

He was Jewish, too. No wonder so many wanted to kill him.

It's so curious how people use Jewish or Jew as an ethnicity when it is actually a religious nomenclature. People may refer to you as Italian, Irish, Polish, etc. or as White or Black, etc, but not as Catholic or Protestant (unless one is in Northern Ireland probably). But yet we will state that someone is Jewish despite the fact that they are also Italian, or Irish, or Polish, or White or Black. Was Sammy Davis Jr. Jewish or was he Black? He was a Black guy that adhered to the Jewish faith. Curious, indeed.

From my experience Jews refer to themselves as Jewish, and not from what country they were born. Sort of like half the board members on here saying they are Italian, even though they are American.

I believe in Jews.

Race, ethnicity, and religion. People refer to themselves differently.
It seems to depend on the group or the individual and who you are conversing with. I prefer to use Euro-American and not limit it to one country since I have roots in several.

....and Jews believe in God.

Erm, I see where you're coming from with this, but I'm not so sure about any of that. To wit: we know that the Egyptians and Mayans built structures that we today, even with all of our modern powers of massive construction and destruction, simply cannot duplicate. Science didn't arise out of a vacuum over night, as you know, it's a system that has built on itself for thousands of years. I think some of us are a little too quick in dismissing the ancient Mayan, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, Golden Chinese, etc. theistic societies as somehow backward and progressively concave compared to our own, when in fact, the scientific acheivements of these ancient peoples were far more significant and broad sweeping than those made in our own supposedly progressive, outward looking time period.

The Hindus' didn't let their multitheism prevent them from inventing the number zero; the Egyptians had Gods of all sorts but were still practicing surgery and alchemy thousands of years ago; the ancient Chinese more or less invented modern Theology as we know it along with just about everything we take for granted today from paper to gun powder; the ancient Mayans were the greatest astrologers, maritime navigators and calendar makers ever (see Mayan 2012 Doomsday Prophecy) who knew more about celestial orbitations than contemporary science does today; and that's just to name a very few achievements by a very few ancient, primitive multitheistic socities, thus; I really think we need to detach ourselves from attributing 'primitive' with naivety or a lack of scientific progression, as it's clear that the scientific postulates formulated by these ancient multitheistic societies thousands of years ago (notwithstanding the monumental acheivements made in the high Middle Ages) are the foundations for which today's "progressive, outward looking society" is built upon.

I'd argue that one must learn to seperate and distinguish between the presuppositions about life that we form as children, from the suppositions that are developed in mature adult hood. We must distinguish between those experiences which are necessary conditions of human experience, and those which are not. Unfortunately, God gets thrown out often times about the same time as the Tooth Fairy and other mythical whimsies. Put simply - I'd argue that God is a necessary condition of human experience, while tooth fairies and Santa Claus are not. Once we're able to draw clear distinctions between childhood presuppositions and the suppositions formed in adulthood - thereby distingusihing between those experiences which are necessary conditions of human experience and those which are not - then the idea of a God can be developed and conceptualized like any other discipline.

Re: Science vs. Religion - The famous Tower of Babel (19,000 ft high, and 8 miles round); "an enormous tower built at the city of Babylon, a cosmopolitan city typified by a confusion of languages,[2] also called the "beginning" of Nimrod's kingdom. According to the biblical account, a united humanity of the generations following the Great Flood, speaking a single language and migrating from the east, participated in the building. The people decided their city should have a tower so immense that it would have "its top in the heavens."...."Then they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.'" (Genesis 11:4). The Book of Genesis then relates how God, displeased with the builders' intent, came down and confused their languages and scattered the people throughout the earth."

The great Tower of Babel is believed by many historians to have been an a symbol for the consolidation of science and religion. It's been said that it was God himself who burned it to the ground, angry at the townspeople, but most historians believe the gargantuan structure was destroyed by townspeople who didn't believe in a unification of science and religion. I have a feeling that a similar fate would befall any modern attempts at such a landmark today..

Wait a minute, "necessary condition of human experience"? Alright...

Erm, right. Speak for yourself.

Also, I've already said science is limited to the tools and thoughts of the time and space in which it exists. I don't think I'd be creating too much controversy here if I supposed that we know more about the world today - and that we are better equipped to know more about it - than ancient peoples did. That's an inevitable part of historical progression.

The Mayans didn't build the Empire State Building in just over a year, because they couldn't; they didn't have the means.

As Marx said: 'The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.'

Also, I could visit one cathedral after another in England and not fail to be overwhelmed by their architectural beauty. Just as I might enjoy well-woven biblical allegories and references in Bob Dylan's work.

That is not to say that, 'God is not long dead intellectually, and we ought not to strive to make him redundant socially'.

I studied Marx because I had to. Marx (and any of his contemporaries) didn't know anything about psychology. There's no simple causality between (social) existence and consciousness. Btw., in the German original he doesn't say anything about (i)social[/i] existence. "Das Sein bestimmt das Bewußtsein."
All this, of course, has nothing to do with my original question.

I never thought that this would be my most answered thread.

No, I don`t believe in things I can`t watch, feel or whatever with my senses.

Personally, I believe in a god. I have my reasons, just as Capo and VitoC and the others that don't have theirs.

My reasons are many, but I shall share two of them.

Reason Number One:

When I was six years old I suddenly got very ill, it started off as just flu symptoms, but one day my Dad found me with large, purple, elliptical bruises all over my body, and I was burning up. He immediately called 911, they medivac'd me to Arnold Palmer Childrens hospital; At this point I was hallucinating severely. When they admitted me the bruises had disappeared, but when they checked my temperature I had a fever of 108 degrees Fahrenheit. They packed me in ice, and eventually brought it down (giving me frostbite on my right thigh in the process.) But I continued to hallucinate, after two days I stopped, but was still extremely feverish, no appetite, etc. The whole time the doctors could find nothing wrong with me. Then, 4 days after I was admitted, I just... got better... inexplicably. They said it would take on the upwards of 2 weeks, and I got completely better in 4 days.

Some people may not think so, but I believe it was a genuine miracle.

Reason Number Two:

My family has been going through some real tough times lately, and tonight we didn't have anything at all in the house to eat for dinner. We had $2.58 to our name and we went to the store (A Publix in a strip mall with a Movie Gallery/Subway/Bizzaro's Pizzaria) While I was inside I bought Eggs and bread, to feed our family we had a dozen eggs and a loaf of bread. when I came back outside My dad had a Pizza from the Pizzaria. He had apparently asked the manager if he could have a pizza to feed us and the man said yes. So when we would not have had enough food to feed us, we suddenly had enough.


I know they are not stone solid proof... and I know that most will write it off as luck. But to me, and me alone, this proves the existence of a god.

Please, I don't need to hear how you can write these occurrences off to luck, or the like. To me they prove God exists.

You see, I don't understand why people try to crush the believers' faith. If you don't think there is a God, I don't need you to try to prove me wrong, or show me the errors of my ways. Why don't you Keep it to yourselves and pity us "fools." Because I don't think that anyone here, who does believe in a god, want to hear that we are morons, or various other insults. Just leave us be.

That is my two cents

EDIT: I don't think that my ability to see reason, and broaden my intellectual horizons is hindered because I believe in God. I realize fully that there is no proof, and that there probably never will be, the only people that know are dead. But there is, as I have said, no reason for an Atheist to try to sway a believer's faith, and Visa Versa. Just let everyone believe what they want and let us go on with their lives.

Why yes virginia there is a God.

ds

Two cents well spent. Well said Santino.

I believe in God, yep.

Again, that's just a way of interpreting "the inexplicable".

"I do not know what caused this, therefore it must have been caused by 'God'."

But they don't, though, do they? Because you said yourself that "they are not stone solid proof". It's just a way of interpreting historical hazard in religious terms.

As for your second reason to believe in God... was the same divine being accountable for your family's hardship in the first place?

Also, isn't the reason your family ate eggs, bread and a pizza that night down to economic circumstance and a very kind pizzeria employee? Was God acting through said employee?

If it had suddenly started raining pizzas in your garden after you had prayed for God to feed you, then fair enough. But as is, I see nothing inexplicable or miraculous in the logic of events you've described.

The key question here is why do you account for these events with an interventionist interpretation? Regardless of what the event is, why should it be a creator, some unknown mysterious and morally good force?

I can understand the desperation of certain situations, and the immense relief one might feel when surviving such situations (be that an earthquake, a break-up or the biological need to consume food). I can relate to the real sense of 'gratitude' and 'thanks' in coming through these situations, though cannot understand why one must fill what one thinks is a gap in logic (due to scientific ignorance?) with 'GOD DID IT!'

I direct to Santino Brasi the same words I posed to Blib earlier in the thread:

Try thinking of all the coincidences in your life that didn't occur, that haven't happened, to try and get an idea of the meaninglessness of attributing one improbable event to some sort of morally conscious being..