scifiguy

(If you don't believe the Bible is literally true, consider this a hypothetical question.)

Jesus is said to be the son of God who lived as a mortal, was tortured, died, spent 3 days in hell, and then rose from the dead to save everyone who believed in him from eternity in hell. Great. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord.

Now, we also have the TV evangelist Kenneth Copeland who has become extraordinarily rich off of the donations of his followers. According to the Bible, "It is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:25).

Since Kenneth Copeland has selflessly volunteered for an eternity in hell by acquiring the wealth of his followers who in turn are more likely to be allowed into heaven since they are poor, should that be considered a greater sacrifice than Jesus made by spending only 3 days there?

And if a mere mortal like Kenneth Copeland will deliberately volunteer for an eternity in hell to save his followers from the same fate, then how would Jesus making a lesser sacrifice prove that he is divine?

From etymonline.com:

pagan: c.1375, from L.L. paganus "pagan," in classical L. "villager, rustic, civilian," from pagus "rural district," originally "district limited by markers," thus related to pangere "to fix, fasten," from PIE base *pag- "to fix" (see pact). Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (e.g. milites "soldier of Christ," etc.).

Are you a 'soldier of God' willing to kill nonbelievers in the name of your religion, or are you really a pagan at heart?

Isn't your presence here a tacit admission that faith is not sufficient reason for believing anything?

If it were, you would not be seeking the opinions of others to validate your position. Nor would you be attempting to convert everyone else who has a faith which contradicts yours.

Here is a comment from someone (who shall remain nameless) on this site.

"The universe is infinite; in an infinite set, all possibilities exist. God is a possibility. Ergo, I believe in God."

To me, this seems to be nonsense for a whole host of reasons, but I'm not going to go into those. I'm only asking if it really proves what it explicitly claims.

In an infinite set, all possibilities which are finite in size exist. But God is infinite in size, power, and knowledge.

Even in an infinite universe, is there really room for an almighty, omnipresent, omniscient God?

For this question, 'God' is defined simply as an "almighty, omniscient creator of the universe."

Assuming for the moment that atheists are right and no God exists, that means that the belief people have in God and their religions in general are not based on God. They must be based on something else.

So why do atheists tell people that God doesn't exist?

What exactly does that accomplish?

Even according to atheism, belief in God is not the real difference between atheists and theists. There must be an underlying difference that causes that one. I would suggest that the real difference is about whether or not 'faith' is a virtue.

Why don't atheists try to address the real problem instead of merely pointing out the symptoms?

Even if God doesn't exist, it doesn't seem to me that saying it accomplishes anything.

People tend to state that their belief or lack of belief in God is based on evidence in the world. That is merely avoiding the question.

There is one world, but many people. It isn't the world that differs. It is us.

What is it about YOU that causes you to believe or not believe in God? Don't blame it on the world.

Science and scripture are part of the world. Don't blame it on them, either.

Some Christians here claim that the Bible is all literally true because it is the "word of God" and everything God says is literally true.

Christians also claim that, as part of the Trinity, Jesus is God.

Yet the Bible claims that Jesus taught in parables. The Gospels list at least 33 of them.

The parables of Jesus are considered the prototype for the word 'parable' and it is defined as "a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson." Two antonyms of allegory are fact and history.

In other words, a parable is not literally true.

So, we are faced with a problem. If Jesus is God, then sometimes God says things which aren't literally true. If everything that God says is literally true, Jesus is not God.

The two options are mutually exclusive. Which one do you believe in and why?

People here often ask about the meaning or purpose of life, but we can't seem to come to an agreement on the answer. Maybe we should start with something simpler.

What is life? What characteristics must be present in an object before it is considered alive?

The ability to reproduce? What about mules, eunuchs, and women after menopause? None of them can reproduce but are considered alive.

The ability to feel pain? I can hook up a few sensors to a robot and program it to feel pain. It isn't even hard to do.

The ability to grow? The hair and nails on corpses continue to grow after they are considered dead.

The ability to take in food, metabolize it, and excrete waste? My car takes in gasoline and expels air pollution. How is that so different?

The ability to learn, remember, and react to the environment? Any modern computer has that.

The existance of a soul? Exactly what is a soul, and how do you test for it?

What is life?

Many adults today say "Children today have no morals."

The things our children learn are a direct result of what we teach them. If we want them to have morals, maybe we should teach them in school. Surely it would be a better use of time than teaching them to finger paint, play kickball, and sing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" in harmony.

Atheists will acknowledge that morality has nothing to do with religion, so the "seperation of church and state" should not be used as an excuse for keeping such a class out of public schools.

On the other hand, Christians and other theists seem resistant to discussing morality without the involvement of relgion. Is their reluctance to admit that morality can exist outside of religion the true reason morality is not taught in schools?

If Christians want to live in a society with both morality and "the seperation of church and state," then shouldn't they be willing to consider that fact that morality can be based on more than just faith?

I have heard many Protestant Christians on this site say that atheists have no incentive for morality because they do not believe that an almighty God will reward or punish them based on their actions in life.

I've also heard them say that God chooses whether to send someone to heaven or hell based only on whether or not that person believes Jesus is their savior.

Since these Protestant Christians believe that God does not reward or punish them based on their actions in life, should their claims that atheists lack an incentive for morality really be viewed as statements that Protestant Christians lack an incentive for morality?

In reality, the Norse expeditions to North America were led by Leif Erikson, a Christian. He had no intention of conquering native people, never took slaves, and eventually decided to head back to Greenland because of attacks by the native "Skraelings."

However, from what I've seen of the movie (I haven't watched it, but I've checked out the website, read reviews, and watched the commercials), they replaced the Christians with followers of the old religion and made them even more bloodthirsty and savage than the worst descriptions by the Christian monks.

It seems to me that the movie has thrown out what really happened back then and replaced it all with as much violence as they could image, most of which isn't even remotely plausible.

In my opinion, this movie gives people the wrong impression of Asatru and is extremely insulting to its followers and anyone who knows anything about history.

Have any of you seen the movie? What is your opinion of it?

In other words, if the 10 Commandments was a list of things that humanity should do instead of things that we shouldn't do, then what would they be?

I often hear it said that the existence of God cannot be tested for experimentally.

It's true that it is hypothetically possible for God to have set the laws of physics before the Big Bang and he now only passively watches the universe unfold. This cannot be tested for. However, it is also not the type of God that most people believe in.

Most people believe that God exists, is almighty, and is omniscient. If we assume these things to be true, can we experimentally test any other aspects of his nature? How?

Are there any other assumptions that we would need to make?

If Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad were space aliens, would you still follow their teachings?

Is it the morality of their teachings that you value, or is it really something else?

In other words, is it better to be a monotheist or a polytheist?

Why?

Rational

-adj.

1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.

2. Of sound mind; sane.

3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical.

Are God's actions and commands based on reason and logic, or are they based on emotions and instincts?

If God's commands are based on reason and logic, why are reason and logic so rarely used to convince humanity to follow them? Why do religions instead demand that we follow God's commands simply because God and/or ancient texts say so?

Wouldn't explaining the reason and logic of God's commands to "nonbelievers" be a better way to convince them to follow them?

Or do God's actions and commands lack reason and logic and therefore they must be followed simply because he says so?

People often claim that humans are made in the "image of God."

Does this refer to our physical bodies? Does it mean that God has a body which, like ours, closely resembles that of a chimpanzee?

Or does it refer to our mental qualities? Do humans have amazing God-like mental abilities such as telepathy, telekinesis, or maybe even the ability to distiguish whether an action is right or wrong simply by thinking logically about it?

Christians commonly claim that humans are the "children of God," but do you really believe it?

Most theists try to teach morality by using the concept of heaven and hell to bribe and threaten people to behave. Others claim that if you love God, you will follow his orders without question.

To me, these teaching methods seem to be identical to the ones used to train pets. Pets are rewarded for good behavior and punished for bad. Then, we expect them to follow our orders without question.

With other humans, we only use these teaching methods among the young and immature. Most parents want their children to grow up and learn to think for themselves. We try to teach them WHY things are right and wrong, not simply which one they are.

For example, parents teach children not to play in the street by warning them of the danger of being hit by a car. We train our pets by keeping them on a leash and yanking when they stray.

Which is it? Are we God's children or his pets?

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupry

Humans and other animals have vestigial organs. If we were really designed, the design was flawed.

Why would an "Intelligent Designer" use a flawed design?

The second coming of your favorite prophet/messiah/deity incarnate? A mutant third arm? Nanobots that repair our bodies and make humans immortal? Ragnarok? Worldwide sterilization of all humans? A retrovirus that causes everyone's skin to turn permanently green?

What is the best thing that could happen to the human species? Why?