The big question, what religion are you?

well, i my parents did try to raise me this way. Still, that did not prevent me from pushing my parents’ teachings away and doing my own searching and finding. Most intelligent people do this.

well good for you. i didnt ask whether you think intelligent people do this, i asked for YOUR experience.

i think this is quite ignorant. It is true that some people follow the religion of their parents, but all of the Christians i know have come by their faith “honestly” - i.e. through personal experience and soul searching.

again, good for them. but i could counter with in MY experience, people generally accpet the religion they were raised as. the exceptions in people i know are people raised with religion, who later became atheist or agnostic. this almost completely refutes your statement. so its really not ignorance, its a theory, an unproven theory, but still a theory based on what i have seen. im not trying to label anyone or say that they are blindly following the path their parents put them on, just making an observation. and clearly there are exceptions.
this is just another example of you insulting me, and quite frankly, i dont appreciate it.

So you’re saying all faith is based on obedience to an authority?

no, i didnt say all, and its not based on obediance to an authority, but custom. like i said, most people i know dont really have faith or lack of it based on some experience, but rather based on custom, from their upbrining. they honestly believe or not, but i doubt they would if they were raised differently. does that clear it up?

Well, Herr Falk, I certainaly don’t partake in that type of Christianity. That site is an excellent example of twaddle(to tell you the truth, I scored a 0 on that test!). I have seen foolishness like this before, but not at such extremes! Those stupid answers don’t sound like the bible to me! Whoever runs that site, twisted the word to suit his/her needs, and this changed the meaning COMPETELY! There was an add on there that said something to the extent of “accept Jesus now, and he will give you a cellphone!” MY GOD!!! What CRAP! :evil: sorry… :lol: im getting worked up here…

Just to emphasize my point, and not to insult your intelligence Herr Falk, that was NOT a good example of real Christianity. Society has completely diluted the true meaning of Christ. Since humans revolve around “stimulation” and “entertainment”, individuals try to gussy up the bible, making it tantalizing and “fun”. And the effect of this is: all entertainment, and lost truth. Here is an example; when I was a young 'un, all my “Christian” buddies went to a “Salty the Bible” concert(a person dressed up as a Bible with lime green stockings, singing Bible songs). My mom wisely said “no”, which I am grateful for. I never went to any Bible fun stuff, because the Word isn’t a game, or Bible characters flickering infront of you on a T.V. screen. It is THE Truth, a serious bond between you, and God.

Now NO cartoon, quiz, or Bible game can create that bond. You must
actually accept God into your heart, and maintain a constant relationship with him to sustain that bond. Don’t mistake me for a Bible thumper, because I am not. Go ahead, laugh me off and keep searching in vain for your “truth”. I guarantee you that there isn’t any relationship on this planet, or in the universe, like one with our Lord and Savior.

Guten Abend Herr Falk.

no, i didnt say all, and its not based on obediance to an authority, but custom. like i said, most people i know dont really have faith or lack of it based on some experience, but rather based on custom, from their upbrining. they honestly believe or not, but i doubt they would if they were raised differently. does that clear it up?

Well where does faith come from for those others. You acknowledge that faith is at least based on obediance to conformity, but how can this be called faith at all? Does faith have to come from within rather than with out.

@Janus1:

well, i my parents did try to raise me this way. Still, that did not prevent me from pushing my parents’ teachings away and doing my own searching and finding. Most intelligent people do this.

well good for you. i didnt ask whether you think intelligent people do this, i asked for YOUR experience.

This was my experience.

i think this is quite ignorant. It is true that some people follow the religion of their parents, but all of the Christians i know have come by their faith “honestly” - i.e. through personal experience and soul searching.

again, good for them. but i could counter with in MY experience, people generally accpet the religion they were raised as. the exceptions in people i know are people raised with religion, who later became atheist or agnostic. this almost completely refutes your statement. so its really not ignorance, its a theory, an unproven theory, but still a theory based on what i have seen. im not trying to label anyone or say that they are blindly following the path their parents put them on, just making an observation. and clearly there are exceptions.

of course there are exceptions. I have met many people raised as agnostics/atheists/other who have become very strong Christians.

this is just another example of you insulting me, and quite frankly, i dont appreciate it.

well, if it makes you happy to interpret this as an insult, then go right ahead. I’ve already experienced this with HFW. Stating that a statement you made was ignorant was not intended as an insult as a correction. I am sorry that you were insulted by this. That’s really too bad.

So you’re saying all faith is based on obedience to an authority?

no, i didnt say all, and its not based on obediance to an authority, but custom. like i said, most people i know dont really have faith or lack of it based on some experience, but rather based on custom, from their upbrining. they honestly believe or not, but i doubt they would if they were raised differently. does that clear it up?

such is my point. the people i refer to believe out of habit, out of custom. as opposed to the people who have claimed (for me its a claim because i dont believe them) that they have experience god in some way (miracle, felt his presence, etc.) and so have faith because of this. while i dont agree with either, i have more respect for someone who actually has a reason for their faith, even if i doubt the validity of their reason (nothing you can say will make me believe you felt god’s presence, but if you believe it, more power to you). same with atheists/agnostics. if you truly have doubts, or dont believe, because you have some kind of experience (or lack of experience, as the case may be) good, if you were simply raised as an atheist, than thats different, imo.

ill give an example: political ideologies. it has been my experience, that the majority of my peers that i know (i.e. people from my school). have no REAL understanding or opinion of politics. now, oftentimes, these same people will identify themselves as liberal or conservatives, typicalls based on either their parents, or the history department at our school (blatantly pushing liberal propaganda to these poor, impressionable students, some more openly than others). now many of these people now call themselves liberal, yet i doubt whether many would be if we had not had the teachers that pushed the liberal message, and/or if their parents were not, because these kids really dont know anything about anything politics to identify one way or the other. i dont expect you to agree with my viewpoints, but i have reasons for them, they arent simply based on my upbringing (quite counter, in fact: my parents are liberal, and i had the same liberal propaganda at school).

again, i dont mean to say that everyone develops belief or lack therof based on upbringing, but i think it plays a strong role. some are independant minded enough to think for themselves about what they truly beleive, rather than simply following their upbringing.

i anticipate your response AgentSmith, so i will counter it now: if they only believe because of upbringing, do they truly believe? (or vice versa)

consider this: if you are raised in a strong christian household, with the bible followed as strictly as any human could reasonably do, what do you think the chances are the kid will grow up believeing in god? better than not, id say, by a wide margin. there will be exceptions, but for the most part, i think the kid will be a believer. and truly a believer, because he will have been taught god since his first step. he will, unless he has some sort of falling out (something causes him to lose faith) really have no reason NOT to believe in god. same for atheists. if a child was brought up always being taught there is no god, having everything they ask explained in terms of tangible, mortal things (i.e. not supernatural, divine, etc) than he will have no reason TO believe in god, unless he is born again (thinks he is touched by some divine presence). but again, in such children, the likelihood of a falling out or being born again is slim, because such ideas are not commonplace to them.

for myself, since i was raised with some exposure to god, and by parents who believed in god, even if they did not pay service to a religion, i was in the perfect position to find out for myself. i realized i dont believe in god, and find the idea overly-complicated, confusing, and downright absurd.

i hope that answers your question

oh, and TT2, while i almost entirely disagree with your position, i think it was the best, most sincere, and most lucid thing you have ever posted. started out rocky, but ended smooth. props to you. :wink:

anybody read angels and demons? the camerlengo’s speech to the world from inside the sistine chapel was the most convincing argument for religion and against science i have ever heard. if there had ever been any wavering in my position, that would have changed my mind entirely. fortunately, i steadfastly hold to my beliefs. :D

no, i didnt say all, and its not based on obediance to an authority, but custom. like i said, most people i know dont really have faith or lack of it based on some experience, but rather based on custom, from their upbrining. they honestly believe or not, but i doubt they would if they were raised differently. does that clear it up?

Well where does faith come from for those others. You acknowledge that faith is at least based on obediance to conformity, but how can this be called faith at all? Does faith have to come from within rather than with out.

@AgentSmith:

its not based on obediance to an authority, but custom.

You acknowledge that faith is at least based on obediance to conformity,

does he?

To the comments regarding the (totally satire and satire only) website….

@tt2:

I have seen foolishness like this before, but not at such extremes! Those stupid answers don’t sound like the bible to me! Whoever runs that site, twisted the word to suit his/her needs, and this changed the meaning COMPETELY!

(apart from it being satire):
How can you tell? It is all quotes. If you say “it doesn’t sound like the bible”, how can you be sure that it is the other one who twisted the words, and not you? You are interpreting. That person is (probably) interpreting but sticking as close to the quotes as possible. How comes you know the meaning, but the other one doesn’t?
If he can fail, but not you, then you must have some divine contact he hasn’t.

There was an add on there that said something to the extent of “accept Jesus now, and he will give you a cellphone!” MY GOD!!! What CRAP! sorry… im getting worked up here…

No problem. It is satire. I am more concerned about the fact that you its seriousness for granted. To take that seriously, you must be pretty close in your opinions. I find that scary.

(The bible) is THE Truth, a serious bond between you, and God.

Just follow this link:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
It has a list of contradictions. How can a contradiction be THE truth?
and for what you need for a “serious bond”, look up Luke 14:26:
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple”.

You must actually accept God into your heart, and maintain a constant relationship with him to sustain that bond. Don’t mistake me for a Bible thumper, because I am not.

How comes you know better than the prophets and JC himself what you have to do to sustain that bond? You are nothing more than a heretic.

keep searching in vain for your “truth”.

I am not searching “in vain”, as i am not searching in one book only. Every day i find more and more of my truth. That is what makes me human.

For all my answers here: keep in mind, the website is satire. that you couldn’t see it as satire, but took it seriously, is a point of concern for me as you seem very close in your own thinking to the display of “beliefs” on that site. For example, you are sure that you are right, and they must be wrong in the way of interpreting the bible. And of course, if you diverge in your interpretation, that’s what’s classically called a heretic.

@AP:

That is definitely satire. The manner in which they took half of those cases out of context, and neglected to mention certain other verses that would affect the outcomes, makes more than half of their answers actually incorrect. In particular, #6.

Now, this was an answer to CCs post, which quoted a different quiz than the one you are refering to. But you are right, it is satire. And it is satires very right to pull things out of context, to exaggerate.

@AP:

That’s what I love about you Atheists… your selective reading. You take verses completely out of context without mentioning those that give them context to begin with.

But of course, an theist knows in which context that has to be read.
Why did this line not come up when EJ linked to the “prphet of doom” on
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3704?
That person behind that link does exactly the same. But, being a christian who sells an anti-muslim diatribe, it is ok?

• Qui tacet, consentiere videtur. -
  That’s what you did.

And of course, how can you believe in creationism? The bible has to be read “in context”. Putting it in the historic context that means, all of the explanations of how nature works are wrong in that book. It is was people thought some thousand years ago, it has no relevance to reality. Still, the one notion of “god created the world” is an exception, if i believe creationists. Why is that exception true, but all the other attempts on “natural science” are wrong?
You could argue, that we have no evidence against creationists theories.
Well, we have no evidence for a creationists theory either. Thus, it should not be called science at all, and not even theory, but hypothesis.
On the other hand, we have evidence for evolution. incomplete maybe, but it is all we have. Unless of course, you believe the bible and that clouds are gods footprints.

@CC:

is this satire, or real? I can’t tell.

Here is where you find many variances within Christianity - as with nearly any belief system/ideologies.
I think that these people tend also to be selective in the way they read and apply the Bible. They take a verse out of context and apply it as scientific principal.

And that’s why i like CC, and his approach to christianity.
He is critical, and keeps faith to where faith belongs IMHO.

That’s wherein your problem lies… that there is no evidence for evolution, but rather that which scientists claim as evidence actually acts, viewed with a right mind, to prove evolution INcorrect (that is, those points that were flawless until they were exposed as hoaxes… Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, anyone?). This has been done time and again. As I’ve already said, if you’re up to it, email me personally and I will email you just a FEW (maybe around 15 or so?) of the hundreds of points that indicate evolution as scientists explain it was an impossibility.

I would also like to point out that I am in the field of applied mathematics. It is well known that math is, among all the natural sciences, THE most prolific and fundamental of all, and the most logical in connection with proving and disproving ideas. Next comes physics, then chemistry, and last biology in my opinion; some people’s opinions may differ, but it is undeniable that while the others exist only in application to a physical world that we assume is not dreamt by some collective intellect, that mathematics would apply even if this WERE the case, and is the foundation of pure logic.

I would like to in addition point out that math is the ONLY science through which things can be absolutely proven or disproven. The “scientific method” can be proven by an elementary school student’s reasoning to be faulty at best, since it calls constantly for “examples” and “repeated tests.” Here are two cases in which this cherished biologist’s idea of “proof” fails: 1. Using what the scientific method calls for, if you had eaten lunch earlier today, there would be no way to prove that you did. Therefore, you cannot claim it. and 2. With its emphasis on examples, you’d think the entire mathematical community would be outraged, since the one thing mathematicians hate more than ANYTHING else is when people try to indicate a “proof” by example - in our minds the greatest bastardization of that word in all the world. Through a “proof” by example you could prove that all numbers are the same by saying that 26 is the same as 26, or you could claim that all numbers are even because 24 is even, and repeated tests including 12, 256 and 4 indicated a trend. Under evolutionists’ cherished scientific method, this would be considered a “proof.” In the community of those of us in a more logical and fundamental science, however, we realize that there are only five methods of true proof: induction, strong induction, contradiction, counterexample, and direct proof. None of these, sadly, can be used by human logic to prove God’s absolute existence, but this is most likely because it’s well known that, as finite beings, we cannot fathom the logic necessary to consider infinitism (stated by Einstein), and we also cannot imagine the tendencies and characteristics of such a being. Will you now claim that your logic in applying finite characteristics to prove those of an infinite being is correct, and in doing so proclaim it more logical than Einstein’s? I think not. However, proof by contradiction HAS been used - repeatedly - to prove the case point that “evolution as scientists present it did not occur.”

Anyway, I don’t see how you can fault me for believing in a message of peace, goodness, love, and kindness, when you follow a belief that force-feeds people the idea that intellect, emotions, literature, family, friendship, individuality, morality, politeness, organization, and love are all superficial and nothing more than the products of chemical movements; an idea that has been disproven time and again, one that encourages the “fact” that we are nothing but another breed of animal and reduces all of the sacred things about being human, even the meaning of life, to absolutely nothing.

@APolaris:

…that there is no evidence for evolution,

There is no evidence for creationism either. Creationism isn’t even science, no theory but only a hypothesis.
On the other hand, we have very strong hints for evolution, more than creationism ever will be able to bring.

I would also like to point out that I am in the field of applied mathematics.

I know.

It is well known that math is, among all the natural sciences, THE most prolific and fundamental of all

I don’t call maths a natural science at all.
It is more related to philosophy, but not to natural sciences.
If it was a natural science, then you would admit that all information is physical: without a carrier, no information can exist.
I admit though that the tools delivered by maths to the sciences made their advancement possible, and are extremely handy and valuable.

but it is undeniable that while the others exist only in application to a physical world that we assume is not dreamt by some collective intellect, that mathematics would apply even if this WERE the case, and is the foundation of pure logic.

That’s why it is not a natural science. And even then, it is not right, if nothing existed. You still need a world/universe. See, it is coming down to philosophy: Does truth exist, when nothing exists? If it exists, something exists.

I would like to in addition point out that math is the ONLY science through which things can be absolutely proven or disproven.

Yet, of course….
math can not prove or disprove everything, as has been shown by Goedel.
On the other hand, physics might offer a help: You might know Hilbert’s 10th problem. There has been a proposal from an australian Physicist how one could solve it (if the universe gave us infinite energy).

None of these, sadly, can be used by human logic to prove God’s absolute existence, but this is most likely because it’s well known that, as finite beings, we cannot fathom the logic necessary to consider infinitism (stated by Einstein), and we also cannot imagine the tendencies and characteristics of such a being.

Wait … i could claim that nothing infinite exists, as existance is bound to our universe (which is finite). You would probably show me wrong, telling me that the concept of infinity is well understood in math and the existance of inifinitesimal numbers can be proven ( though we agree you can never write it down, even if you had infinite time … as entropy must at least stay constant in our universe).
But then, this would weaken your argument of “our finite logic can’t deal with infinity”… as we can (and do) deal and work with that concept.
So, in one sentence:
Does God exist, or do irrational numbers exist?

Will you now claim that your logic in applying finite characteristics to prove those of an infinite being is correct, and in doing so proclaim it more logical than Einstein’s?

I think this is called “arguing by authority”. I think Einstein also said “it will rain tomorrow” one day.
And of course: Does infinity exist? Sure, you can give me (nearly) any digit of Pi. Does that mean it will never stop?

However, proof by contradiction HAS been used - repeatedly - to prove the case point that “evolution as scientists present it did not occur.”

And this is actually called “argument ad ignorantium”. You might have noticed that you didn’t dare to say “evolution did not occur”.

Anyway, I don’t see how you can fault me for believing in a message of peace…, when you follow a belief that force-feeds people the idea that intellect … are all superficial and nothing more than the products of chemical movements;

And you accused me of selective reading? Come on….
While i do think that life follows natural laws, i have no idea where you get your “force feed” from, …

an idea that has been disproven time and again, one that encourages the “fact” that we are nothing but another breed of animal and reduces all of the sacred things about being human, even the meaning of life, to absolutely nothing.

(1) Show me that it has been disproven once.
(2) Why does being a breed of animals reduce the value of life?
(3) The meaning of life is something that is not given by somethign external, but something you have to find for yourself. If you have to rely on someone to tell you what your meaning of your life is, then i pity you. I have made up my meaning and my value of life, with my chemicals running around my brain making my conclusions out of things that i my senses told me were there.
I do find it extremely insulting from you, that you claim that atheists are by default amoral. That is so not christian that i wonder wether you ever noticed that contradiction, between the despise for atheists that you display here, and the love that you as a christian should preach to be true to yourself.

i can prove that you had lunch today.
of course it would require a knife and maybe some sedation . . . .