Tendo City

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Ack... long posts defending religion... hard to read all of without thinking "that is so dumb" all the time...

Sorry, its true...

As for church itsself, as I've said, I have no problem with church... as I've said here before, I went to church (Unitarian Universalist... :) ) until I graduated from highschool. Perfect religion for a atheist because you don't have to believe in anything spiritual...

Most of religion seems to be in how you grew up. If you grew up in a really religous family chances are you will eventually end up religious yourself... and same for the other way around. The views in my family were pretty much the opposite of yours (LL, DJ, Weltall, etc) so I am the way I am and you're like that...

Belief is exactly that -- belief. It usually doesn't include proof... or it includes "proof" that isn't. Religion has a whole lot of both.

One interesting thing is how as technology advances necessarially retreats -- like how over time beliefs change and doctrine slowly accepts "heretical" ideas... teh world isn't the center of the universe? Absurd! God doesn't live on the clouds? Silly! There aren't caverns under the earth literally filled with the burning people in Hell? Hah! And that's just the really old ones... once they were sure that Jerusalem was in the center of the (flat) world too...

Now of course the issues are evolution and the creation of the world... and many religous types have admitted the scientific evidence in favor of those things are so strong that they'll have to (or have) retreat/retreated there too...

Now of course its "well God created the matter that then exploded to form the universe because who knows how the universe was in whatever it was before the Big Bang happened? Well that (or any position I just mentioned) is just silly. We don't know now how that happened... but we may eventually and you can be sure that it won't be a "miracle". There is always a better scientific explanation that actually is sane.

Its called SCIENCE. It explains things. Is it perfect? Obviously not. But its always getting better... and we're in a time where we can see scientific progress yearly. While that hasn't made religion obsolete (unfortunately), it has helped to make it at least pretend to try to deal with the real world in some way... they can (and do) fight it kicking and screaming, but in the end it'll be forced to change.

Just like it always has in the past. Religion is by its very nature close minded... and not all of that will ever go away. But at least over time it'll be forced to slowly open up... but still religon continues to be a haven for the unsure and the people who need to believe in something intangible to be able to function in the confusing world.

In short its a security blanket... and provides about as much (lack of) protection to the person when truly exposed to the truthipped away... though the usual result is ignoring the point.

Its the only way for religious people to survive as religous... because if you really listened to sense and the real world it'd be impossible to be that way...

You call religion a security blanket, and then spew off line after line of drivel which serves only to reinforce your own beliefs. And the condescending tone you add to it, as though those who follow religion are mindless sheep, is just irritating as all hell.

I was an atheist for a few years. My upbringing was only minimally religious, and I had a period of time where I felt that it was all crap. But like LL, and probably everyone who converts back into religion, I had a period of time where I was in the absolute pits and I made it out. That was two years ago, right around the time I took over Tendo City, in fact. My life has turned around dramatically and right now my future is bright and I'm happy as can be. Now, atheist though I was, I could not attribute that to just chance, because I've known people who fall into despair and never get out of it. But I did, and that's what turned me back to God.

In fact, it made me realize that my faith problems were never with God in the first place, but with the churches. Religion is the creation of Man, and therefore is corrupted and twisted. Therefore, I don't go so far as to consider myself religious. I consider myself simply a man of faith, in Christ and God.

Now, if you want to be an atheist, that's your call. I won't tell you you're going to burn in hell for eternity, as I don't go for that sort of teaching. I believe God is compassionate and loves everyone, regardless of their faults. Perhaps someday you'll have a time in your life when God seems like the only answer. Maybe not (seeing as you're so hardheaded I doubt it), but you seem at the present to have a strong hatred for religion, as evidenced by your ridicule of us, and your wish that religion would become obsolete. It will never even come close to happening. Whether you choose to believe it or not, faith in a higher power is something people have always needed. This nation was founded on a basis of faith and is still very predominantly of a belief in God. It's one of the things that defines us. Sure, there are people who don't buy into that, but they will never be anything more than a fringe minority, and they will have to get over it. You chose to become an atheist, and now you wish the entire nation to conform to your beliefs.

It won't happen. It shouldn't happen. So drop it. And, ironically for an atheist, you sure are holier-than-thou, which doesn't surprise me really, but still, just because you choose not to have faith does not make you a better or smarter person than anyone else. I'll stop believing in God the moment science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that He doesn't exist, and science will never be able to achieve that.

What I wish was obsolete is the way that religion gets people to absolutely believe in bad ideas and defend them to the death... or close to it. It just isn't good for a major organization like that to be able to indoctrinate generation after generation with their stuff...

I don't want religion to go away. Church isn't inherently bad... its the unthinking attitude that churches seem to generate that is. The problem is that organized religion almost always seems to lead to a organization that has a static, fixed and unchanging doctrine that it makes everyone believe. That is bad...

As for science proving god doesn't exist, of course that isn't possible... you can't prove or disprove something of that nature. Its like if I say that the universe was created 10 seconds ago out of nothing in exactly the state its in now -- you can't disprove it but it can't be proven either... god is sort of like that. A intangible (and almost certainly nonexistant) thing...

Oh, and when I say "I honestly can't understand how people can logically believe in god" I'm just being honest... I really don't understand. I know its just something you have to believe in the absence of real proof ("Miracles"? Don't make me laugh...), but it just doesn't make any logical sense... I don't understand why the human race has always had gods and the like. In ancient times it made more sense -- they didn't know the laws of the universe so making them up was the only way to get answers... I guess that after millenia of that it kind of got burned into our collective psyche or something. It happens... so now, even after we have a lot of proof that many of the basic beliefs of religion aren't exactly accurate, people still believe...

I bet in the future there will still be religion... and as it has in the past it will change with the times, albeit very, very slowly.

Would the world be better off without religion? I honestly don't know... its such a major force that predicting what would happen without it is really tough... and I don't know if it'd lead to more freedom of thought in general or to more anarchy or something without something to give guidance to the people who need it...

First off, though I know reading it was probably causing you physical pain (I know I know, I watch some VERY stupid commercials where I actually feel pain due to the aura of stupid flowing off of it, like the Cox commerical I recently saw where a woman was ANGRY, physically YELLING like a couple's argument over infedelity, to a satellite company provider, it HURT me), could you at least read through the whole thing divorcing your emotions completely from it? I can tell you didn't read all of our posts, and pretty much just assumed what we meant based on what you think we are like. Please read the entirety of my response, finding the meaning behind it (and by the way, read above too, it would really help, you argued against stuff we don't believe in).

I didn't even describe my family at all... I described my own personal thoughts growing up, but never once mentioned my family. Thus you said more about yourself than me. Anyway, you listed a large amount of stuff "the church retreated on". You really should do some research. First off, as Weltall and LL to an extent explained, some large governing body telling those who worship God how to go about doing it is not exactly intended. The church is intended to be a place of gathering, not an organized "government" like it has become in certain situations *points in general direction of Italy*. Starcraft's Protoss storyline makes this point VERY clear indeed. It doesn't attack the belief itself you will notice, just the corrupt ruling group, while the belief itself is still just as important to the Protoss as ever.

Now then, I explain that for one very important reason. You stated all sorts of stuff that is NOT a part of our religion (I know LL and Weltall, I myself don't even like calling it a religion, by our definition, but there's another definition that does happen to include Christianity, and we have to work with that sometimes). You listed stuff like "the world is flat" and "this place is the center of the universe" and "God actually physically lives among the clouds" and such, that apparently the Catholic church once believed and has since given up. Now then, what does that have to do with Christianity :D? Really, none of that is in the Bible, or part of being a Xian (fun way to say Christian, it sounds like it's from OUTER SPACE), so why act like Chistianity ever gave ground when it's not even a part, but rather something added later by Ethos, er, church? You have no real point there.

As far as calling us all cooks and such regarding this, so be it. As I said, it really is a matter of faith. You may say it's a security blanket, but why? Why must you attack those who believe such things as cowards and morons? I don't attack you. You are in fact a very intelligent person. I merely say you are a coward, not a coward AND a moron :D. Nah, really I say you are just confused. You see our belief and say "why should we need a God to give our own lives meaning?". I've heard it before, and trust me one thing I've seen argued this point and some others FAR better than you have (no offense, it was a huge work as opposed to an MB post), but in the process of eventually delivering this argument, the entire work actually seemed to me to be SUPPORTING Christianity and attacking only false churches and false gods. I must have misinterpreted the intentions, but it says something when the whole time all these arguments and representations of human nature to me just looked so pro-Christian RIGHT up until the, somewhat early from my view, end, where the wrong person said the line "show me the strength you claim can let you survive without God" and the whole plot kinda fell apart for me (though if it had continued further like I thought it would have, they really could have gone the way I thought it would have gone and actually made a massivly good argument for Christianity). All I'll say is this. The moment is always very important, but wouldn't you like every single moment to be full of completeness, instead of simply "keepin' it real yall" knowledge? (On another note, I am so sick of reality shows mainly because I'm sick of people being so obsessed with "reality" that they loose reality.)

Oh, and alien space marine, the universe is of course bound by logic. Your statement seems to be that something with no beginning and no end is illogical. Hardly. It simply goes beyond our understanding (well, no beginning does, no end is easy enough to at least understand the meaning of, though not the consequences, we aren't elves). I mean, physicists have been devising new theories on how time operates, and it's like a sphere basically. It has no starting point or end point, it's just an expanse of direction. Now, don't take that to mean it loops around to the starting point or something, that's not quite it. It's just that if you keep on going one way, it just veers off and keeps going. It's just "been". Logic is pretty much pure, if it can be explained using logical terms it's logical. So, simply stating "it has no beginning" isn't illogical. It's only illogical if it's been proven that all things MUST have a beginning, which it seems has actually been unprooven. Now saying something like "it has no beginning because it has no beginning" is illogical, because having no beginning was not the actual CAUSE of it having no beginning. A logical statement would be "It has no beginning is equal to it has no beginning". You see, I just said something VERY obvious, but it was to explain logic's nature. It just has to make sense logically. The first thing was illogical because a property cannot be it's own cause. The second was logical because a property can and does equal itself. It's that easy. Where it gets complicated is stacking various statements with each other to make sure they don't contradict. If I said both "it has no beginning" and "it has a beginning" it would be illogical. The same would be if I said one and another person said another. Thus you have to find out which data to throw out, so that it's logical again. That requires more statements, which must match up with the rest of the statement (things you see are statements in this case, like seeing stars moving this way or that, they are statements that must not contradict any other statements). Eh, I have a really bad time with words, but my point is that logic is pretty uncaring about human opinion, um, I htink that's what I'm trying to say...

Oh, and LL, isn't engineering science? It's doing all sorts of experimental stuff and collecting data, mostly as a side effect of the goal of doing something. If the data of even a failure isn't gathered, then you can't help others. Gathering info for the sake of gathering info certainly helps people, so long as that info is stored and passed along. Doing math for the sake of doing math as well helps people if the data is stored and passed along and you are experimenting with new math stuff. One thing about science, scientists don't like "greedy" scientists who go their whole lives just doing experiments and not sharing the data, because that helps no one but the one doing it. On the other hand, sharing the data in an open forum helps everyone, as another scientist or engineer can use said data for what they are doing. Science is something I've always loved by the way. If I wasn't going into programming, I'd be going into another field of nerdity. I'm pretty sure you didn't want to imply this, but you kinda phrased the comment about science this way. It kinda sounds like you are saying science done for the sake of learning alone doesn't help people. I'll just say this anyway, just in case other people happen to actually think that (I bet I misread that though). Science done only for the sake of gathering more information certainly can be and has been helpful for everyone. At the time, it's little more than a page of useless data. However, they passed that data on (as a scientist wanting to use any information they find to help humanity should) and eventually someone read it, and realized THAT was exactlyt he thing they NEVER would have thought of or even began experimenting about on their own, but needed for their amazing device to work. They then completely redo all their plans and try incorporating this information into something new and incredible. This is the whole reason scientific studies get government funding. Governments of the past would never have considered supporting random data gathering for the purpose of data gathering if they didn't think that knowledge might become useful to others. Many lovely inventions wouldn't exist if it weren't for people who may never have thought about what their studies for the sake of learning would do. The only example off-hand that I have though is the worst example I can think of, the nuclear bomb, which would not have ever been invented if some fellow named Einstein's papers didn't hit some technicians just right. Doing something for the sake of learning something new is indeed a noble cause if the reason for you doing it to learn something new is to give that new information to humanity. That's why redoing experiments already done is kinda frowned upon, since that's not adding any new information. However, even then there are times that should be done. If the results of those experiments or the thesis are under question for fraud, it is a good idea to do said studies again.

I think what you meant though was that you wouldn't do math that's already been proven just for the sake of learning something new personally. That I understand fully. No reason getting paid for something that helps no one (though as an off-time hobby, hey no problem there, though I don't find math a hobby I'd enjoy :D, that's what debating dead issues is for :D).

Oh wait, what was I saying? Oh yeah, isn't engineering a science? It uses science anyway. I'm not so sure I'd seperate them so much.

In response to ABF's post he made right before I posted my above post:

Wonder about future religion? Play Xenosaga!

As far as humans existing without religion, it seems to me that the human psyche is built incomplete. It's like there is a sort of hole that has to be filled with something. Now, there's eating, mating, having kids... That all satiates it a little bit. Why do such seperate things seem to do that? They all seem to satysfy something about prolongment. Wanting to survive is a trait that prooves to allow whatever has it to survive! Why do only those most fit to survive survive? Why can't stuff built not to survive last a while? Because they aren't built to last a while! It works like that because it is. All life wants eternity, well the life that wants to keep on keeping on, and of course that which doesn't, doesn't, so existance wants to exist basically, or it wouldn't, because it wouldn't. Things like eating and mating are merely tools to get this eternity. I think all life will always have religion because it's the best tool to obtain this needed thing all life craves, eternity. All life will ALWAYS crave eternity. If it didn't, we WOULD NOT LAST FOR ETERNITY, and thus future would not matter any more, because humans would all be dead, and nothing would replace them unless it too desired eternity, and thus physical tools like eating and psychological tools like religion would occur with them too. Only things which will stop existing do not desire religion.

The way I see it, science is just searching for new ideas and how things work. Engineering is applying what we've learned to something useful. That's why I say CS is not really a science field, but engineering. You use what you learned to provide something useful to people, instead of using what you've learned exclusively as a stepping stone to searching for more knowlege.

Well even using it only as a stepping stone for more knowledge is helpful since eventually it could be used to make useful things.

You know, DJ, reading your whole posts would be a lot easier if I could actually understand most of what you are trying to say... but you are so confusing a lot...

Look... I'm not just refuting the points you people have made... its more a general statement...

Here is one thing Weltall said: That the universe's complexity and the complexity, uniqueness, and rise of the human race are too incredible to be cooincidences. I cannnot possibly dissagree any more strongly with that concept.

How did the universe come to exist? We don't know... there are lots of theories, but we really don't know the truth. Not yet... though in the future we probably will get pretty close. Somehow, there formed a mass of energy that exploded in the Big Bang... and after it cooled the stars and galaxies formed. Obviously at this point we don't know teh details, but we get teh gneeral idea... and I'm absolutley sure that when we do learn more it won't be some magical force that created the univese. Magic is, like most any religious belief, created in the absence of known facts... gods fit that definition perfectly. Oh, and as for life, its called a cooincidence... we don't know the exact circumstances of how life on earth came to exist yet, and haven't explored other solar systems so we have no basis to say if its frequent or not in nature (except for those Martian microbes they found)... but still it happened here in a series of happy cooincidences and accidents. Unlike the other planets in the solar system Earth was right for life... I wonder how many other planets out there are. Given that we haven't exactly explored them anything beyond that is a complete guess... we really don't know.

But I'd be very, very surprised if its that rare... for lower lifeforms anyway...

It is a good question to ask "Why are people religious?" As I said, I don't know why it is so pervasive in human culture... seemingly every culture either has gods or could have gods if they weren't surpressed. That is a interesting fact... and one I can't really explain. It does seem that if it was just ancient peoples explaining stuff it wouldn't be that common... so maybe it is something in the human pysche or something added to the collective conciousness by early exposure to religion or something... I really don't know. It is odd, though... its not odd that it survives in the modern world -- once established, belief is really hard to stop so obviously it survives -- but in the past? Who knows...

Searching for eternity? That's a good idea... people definitely want to survive and continue on... all animals do, of course, but because we are smarter than the other animals we can express it in more ways... for most species it just means having children. For us it seems to result in people seeking the impossible -- immortality... and it certainly makes sense why people would want to believe that a immortal future awaits them, for pretty obvious reasons... its comforting and reasuring... and in some cases (depending on the person's beliefs) can lead to someone either absolving themselves of their wrongs by saying "God wanted me to" or by saying that there is no such thing as free will and God controls all our futures from before we are born... somewhat comforting ideas, i with no factual basis. And its a very convienient (and sometimes actually believed) out for people wanting an excuse for why they did something...

Well, you have your perceptions on religion, and they do have basis in fact, but not everyone uses their faith as a crutch, you know. Regardless of what you think of God, and the Bible (and I doubt parts of the bible myself), but one of the lasting effects of the bible is the teachings of God and Christ, not just blind faith in things you can't comprehend, but simple morals and teachings, that should affect everyone regardless of belief. Six of the Ten Commandments you revile have nothing to do with religion at all. They are basic morals. Thou shalt not kill, steal, bear false witness, covet thy neighbor's wife, commit adultery, and honor thy mother and father. Simple commands that apply to everyone. Many of Christ's teachings apply the same way. "Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone"? What do you people find so dangerous about these things?

As for my comments on all you see being simple chance, you seem to have missed the point

I do believe that certain events are a matter of coincidence, but for humanity to be where it is right now, going all the way back to the Creation, or Big Bang or whatever, there are far, far too many coincidences for me to believe that it's just random chance we are where we are. The laws of probability just do not allow for this many coincidences. There were most likely billions upon billions of variables involved in this process, and slight variations would have likely thrown it all off. I'm sorry, I just cannot accept that so many billions of long-shot coincidences just happened from the beginning to myself being here typing this. I allow that by the laws of probability that nothing is impossible but seriously, the chance of a random explosion eventually leading up to a single world in all that we've seen capable of supporting life, and that life evolving into just the perfect set of circumstances for one single species to become more advanced than all others, and out of all those advanced humans only a part of them advanced beyond the stone age, and that a smaller group still eventually became the most advanced nation in history in all aspects. The chances of this have to be one in trillions, I'm sure. And yet, here we are.

Sorry. Again, that's just too much for just simple chance. That there is a subtle design behind this is the only answer that makes sense to me.

To me, I find it a curiosity as to why the universe exists at all. I won't get into us just defining it, since that's a "duh" but even without us to classify it all, it still exists as something without us. Why does it exist, and why is the universe programmed the way it is, instead of other possible minor, or major, alterations? One may say "The universe just exists", but that's pretty similar to the statement "God just exists", in that it's without any real explanation. The way I phrased that, it would seem occam's razor favors the former, which is something I'm working with.

No, I don't think I did miss the point. You don't think that it is very likely that life can develop on a planet. I think that its not that hard... True, in our solar system there is currently (as far as we know) life on just our planet... but what with the microbes on Mars and such its not like that was always the case. The Earth is just the planet in the best orbit for life to develop...

You seem to think that its so incredibly hard or something for life do develop on a planet... well I doubt it given the correct conditions -- planet in the right place, etc.

Also, we still don't exactly know how life arose on the earth... if/when we do figure that out it'd go a long way to seeing how hard it truly is. But I very much doubt its some super-rare thing... is it in every solar system? Certainly not! But are there plenty of other races out there? I am absolutely sure that there are a lot of them... but we will probably never meet any of them. The chances of another one being both near us and at a level of technology that they'd be able to see our communications (or us theirs) is remote... there are a LOT of stars, so probably there isn't one in the stars very close to us...

But given how long it takes light to travel for most stars we really have no clue so I can't figure out how you think the way we do... and in the abscence of other proof we have just the earth to look at... and as far as I'm concerned, that proves that there could be plenty of planets out there with life on them.\

Oh, and I do go to the christmas service at our church... I'd go to the easter one too if it was during a break from school... but it isn't. Oh well... I do find the sermons in church boring (its why I don't go other times durning breaks), but went through the end of highschool because I liked our RE (sunday school) group... a few of us kept going until highschool ended.

The Bible? It has some real history in it... and some good lessons too. It mixes them, of course, with lots of religious rhetoric, but it has them... Jesus was a person with a overall good message, which of course his followers proceeded to ignore (they'd hardly turn the other cheek, or help the poor, etc, much at all...)

Why would I hate religion? Do I dislike it? Yeah... but hate? No... I may disagree with the methods they use (and the positions many churches take), but I hardly hate it... I realize many people find it helpful. I don't, and can't see how I could ever possibly begin to be religious, but that doesn't mean its wrong for everyone...

It becomes a problem when people try to force their beliefs on others in any way. And on the topic of religion, its something that happens a LOT...

Such as the 10 Commandments... most of them are fine things to follow... but because they are clearly a religious thing and include some strong religious statements they have no place in the government... like that idiotic judge somewhere that had a giant stone tablet with them on them as a sculpture in the courthouse...

most of the crimes comited in the name of god are not at all the will of god.
I belive bassically the reason god does nothing is because as human beings we cannot learn without doing it the hard way.
He is proving that we cannot lead ourselves properly, can you honnestly say you agree with everything Bush is doing? Do you agree that alot of things that are commonly accepted in society are not healthy for it.
What god did do is teach us the right way taught us how we should be and promised once we passed the trials he would come bring peace on all the earth.

The reason people have a hard time to understand bible is they dont really have a real guide to teach them how.I can tell you alot of the churces dont know how either.

common miss conceptions , The star that guided the wisemen to babby Jesus for exmaple is commonly held that it was sent by god.

but in truth if you simply look at the scriptures it apparent it was created by the devil to help Herod find jesus so he could kill him.
of course god sent a angel to convince the wisemen to not too reveal the child's location.

Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Also, we still don't exactly know how life arose on the earth... if/when we do figure that out it'd go a long way to seeing how hard it truly is. But I very much doubt its some super-rare thing... is it in every solar system? Certainly not! But are there plenty of other races out there? I am absolutely sure that there are a lot of them... but we will probably never meet any of them. The chances of another one being both near us and at a level of technology that they'd be able to see our communications (or us theirs) is remote... there are a LOT of stars, so probably there isn't one in the stars very close to us...

But given how long it takes light to travel for most stars we really have no clue so I can't figure out how you think the way we do... and in the abscence of other proof we have just the earth to look at... and as far as I'm concerned, that proves that there could be plenty of planets out there with life on them.

Even though you may argue, I think you DID miss Weltall's point. What he was saying is something one hears a lot if one reads ANY book dealing with the universe/creation written by a Christian: believing in a divine creation involves similar faith to believing in a blind creation. You say that earth is your proof of it being possible that other life exists in the universe. You don't have a single fact to your cause, other than "there's a possibility it could happen." To put it simply, you BELIEVE there's life on other planets. So why is that belief correct and belief in God isn't?

That probably sounds familiar, because it's almost exactly what Weltall said. Just makes sense, I guess. In all honesty, no living man can ever PROVE it either way, so it's almost moot to DEBATE. However, I think that if someone really wants to know how the universe could work with a loving God, then it's worthwhile to go into semantics over religion. As far as a debate topic, though, it sucks.

Yeah ABF, I'm afraid scientifically, belief that there simply HAS to be life on other worlds just isn't exactly accurate. The reasoning is this. We have NO idea what the probability is for life developing, should it have been evolution as we know of it now that did it. As a rule, scientists currently have no solid opinion on whether or not there is life on other worlds. Billions of planets is something to go on, that's a lot of chances, but unless they know the chances of life occuring, that number is irrelevent. Billions or even trillions of planets still aren't enough if the chances turn out to be one in a quadrillion. Now, if life is found on Mars (it hasn't actually been found, it's just a hypothetical explanation for certain things they have found on Mars so far, it's not yet the explanation that is the only possibility, or at least a much higher or more likley chance than others, which is needed) then that certainly raises the probability by a HUGE amount, but that has to be done first. Until then, the probability is completely unknown with only a singular "positive" in all the universe to work off of.

DJ, I'd say finding microbes in a meterorite that came from Mars is some pretty good proof of life there at one point... also, there is proof that Mars has water ice and probably had flowing water at one point...

As for other planets, we have found some of those in other solar systems. Most are gas giants because those are a lot easier to detect... but a few smaller planets have been found too and it really raises hopes that planets are indeed very common... and all a solar system needs is a planet (or moon, or whatever) orbiting in the range of distance from the sun that is conductive to life... any (real) evidence I can think of about how life evolves says that it was hardly something so rare that we are alone in the universe or something...

However, it obviously is true that absolute proof one way or the other is almost entirely theory... it just seems based on how life evolved on earth that it wouldn't be that hard for it to evolve elsewhere too. I don't understand how its some super rare or hard to get thing or something... Earth is the only planet in this solar system in a good orbit for life, except maybe Mars -- which seems to have had it at one point... but it was just to far away and too cold there.

I don't blindly believe in things... they need proof. Science has proof (scientific laws)... and in the topic of he past and how the universe and life formed, there are laws. While we don't know all the details yet, people are working on that now and slowly revealing what happened as the universe developed... its really intresting stuff, if confusing.

Do I think there are other races out there? I see no possible way that there aren't... it is just so ridiculously improbable (and insanely self-centered) to say that we're the only life in the universe... and makes no sense when confronted with the realities of life as we know them... but will I say "They Do Exist. Period."? No... we don't have absolute proof. So its just a (very good) theory...

Oh, and can anyone tell me what alienspacemarine meant? He's impossible to understand...

Nothing was really confirmed there. I happened to watch quite a few things regarding that incident, and sadly it seems that they can't confirm said microbes are from Mars. There are other likely explanations, and remember occam's razor.

As far as water, that alone doesn't mean life. It's been known for some time that there's water, and in fact now it seems it's very possible flowing water is actually locked under the surface of Mars.

Scientifically, the view that there HAS to be life is just as incorrect right now as saying it's ridiculously improbably. As I said, we don't know the chances. In other words, there is no opinion yet until enough data is out to form one.

Just like you, ABF, I find all the different discoveries of the universe absolutely fascinating. Some of the recent scientific novels to come out had me skimming (I won't even pretend to understand what they talk about) for pictures and being amazed at stuff like String Theory.

The hardest part about life arising from nonlife is the 2nd (?) Law of Thermodynamics, or something, the law that says everything in the universe goes through entropy (or however you would say it). Basically, things become more disorganized as time goes on. So the chances of something progressively becoming more organized are slim.

Or that's how I understand it, which is possibly way off base.

if life to arise by itself it would have to deal with astroid impacts and world killers.
black holes!super novas! the list is endless.....

Yeah, that's exactly right WhiteFleck. It's also an important concept in chemistry.

DJ, I agree that just searching for knowlege is useful for that same reason- it's just not what I want to do. You know what I'm trying to say, quit nitpicking! :)

I don't see why the resistance is so strong to take "under God" out the constitution to render it more religiously-tolerant. Okay, maybe it is a very insignificant issue; I was rather annoyed to first hear about it as well.

However, what's the point of leaving it in there anyway, other than "Well, that's a dumb issue and we have more to worry about, and besides, it's tradition"? IMO, that doesn't outweigh the pros of omitting it. Something as standard as the Pledge of Allegiance should be tolerant to begin with, no? I mean, keeping "under God" in there, when you get right down to it, is almost just as bad as posting the 10 commandments in school. Hey, both ideas intend to "keep order", right? How many people do you really think adhere to "under God" when considering whether or not they should be bad?

And I'm not saying that anyone should be chastised for saying "Under God" during the pledge, should this be passed for the other 49 states. That's silly, also. People should reserve that right just like they now reserve the right to remain silent when "Under God" is spoken. However, why is it such a horrible idea to make the ORIGINAL allegiance less offensive? Especially if those two words were added to the original to begin with, sheesh...

Yeah, sorry LL :D.

Anyway, regarding this flag thing (which I think I didn't even give a full opinion on yet), while I personally see no problem with it in there (I see a larger problem with having a pledge at all, because it's useless), I myself am hardly going to put any effort into defending it in it's current state. If I'm going to say it's pointless, I might as well not completely contradict myself by making a huge issue out of it myself, no? As I said before, I don't see why "under God" is any more offensive than the phrase "I pledge alliegence". Both are making you say something you may not actually believe in. Most of the time, both are completely ignored and not even thought about by the people repeating it. Anyway, it's no biggy if it's ditched or not to me because the pledge isn't the center of my faith, it just has a line regarding my faith in it. At the same time, my old statements about how benign stuff like that really is shouldn't be ignored. Since the pledge has no emotion behind it when recited, no one should feel like it's statements are being forced on them. No one should be getting upety saying "it's wrong to force people to take a pledge of loyalty" (like other countries have said regarding it), because the government really isn't going to make sure that the students believe a single thing that's in the pledge. There's no force behind it at all. You can even NOT recite it and almost always get away with it. No one is going to drag you away or anything. Mental? Pfft, don't make me laugh.

The Canadian equivilent of your pledge of alligence was changed in the last ammendments to the bill governing citizenship and refrences to god and any supremem being were removed. It was the belife of the federal government that to become a Canadian citizen(reciting the pledge during the citizenship ceremony where you recive the citizenshop is required) and to swear alligence to your country you should not have to confess any belife in a god, especially since not everyone that wants to become a citizen belive in a god. The Prime Minister and the majority of his cabinet are religiouse but it was their belife that their beligs should not be forced upon everyone else.

Quote:Originally posted by Dark Jaguar
Yeah, sorry LL :D.
while I personally see no problem with it in there (I see a larger problem with having a pledge at all, because it's useless), I myself am hardly going to put any effort into defending it in it's current state.

I don't know if I'd even call the closest thing we have to the pledge an equivilent, but you rarely hear it, the vast majority of citizens in Canada couldn't tell you any of it, but it is required to recite it once if you imigrate here and then want citizenship if you become a public official.
I remember reading when the origional ruling against the pledge was made that reciting the pledge as often as it is recited is actually a fairly recen phenomena

Quote:I don't see why "under God" is any more offensive than the phrase "I pledge alliegence".

There's the fact that belief in "God" has nothing to do with pledging allegience to a country...

That's not the equivilant for a different reason. We have an entirely different speech for people immigrating to the US. The pledge of alligence seems to be a school only thing, at least now. So, compare it to any sort of loyalty oath children must recite at the start of a school day and you have the only thing that can compare. If you don't have such a thing, which is pretty likely, then there ya go.

Yeah... the Pledge has nothing to do with immigration or what new citizens say. Its said at school at the beginning of the day... you look at the classroom's flag and put your hand over your heart and say it... 'I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

I have no idea if other countries have something like it... I don't remember something like that in Slovenia, but it was so long ago I could have forgotten since then... I don't know.

It works just as well without those words and isn't offensive anymore... they were added in the '50s to promote religion and patriotism after all...

Umm, if you say that you think "pledge allegiance" is just as offensive, you just fundamentally don't get it. They have no relation... sure some people don't pledge allegiance, but that's totally different from something to do with god... its just not on the same level at all.

Oh, and I bet someone somewhere has sued over that too... but a case on that issue would never win...

All I want to know is this -- why pledge allegiance to the flag? Why not to the nation?

Good point, if I'm merely allied to the flag all it means is I can't burn it. What's the flag going to tell me to do?

I said it's the nearest thing to an equivilent because there is nothing that is said every day. But I consider an imigrant pledging aligence to a country for the first time and school children pledging every day to be nearly the same thing, they are both pledging alligence, though the us pledge of alligence is a pledge to the flag I'm sure that it's intended to be interpreted as a pledge to the country seeing as a country's flag is usually considered to represent the country.

Amen, Black Falcon.

I have enough faith and confidence in my fellow man to know that in time, man will evolve beyond the needs of religion. I promise you that within a few centuries, there will be no religion. That's not a threat to all the Jesus nazis in here who are sure to cruficy me for this; it's a prediction. Eventually, even Christians who were brainwashed from childhood to believe what their parents and their parents (etc) believed will wake up and realize this too.

DLN, my POINT was that we have a totally different speech that people give when they become a US member. That's the nearest equivelent, because it's the SAME THING as what you have. The pledge of alligence isn't the same speech at all. It's just weird. Comparing it to your immigrant speech is the same as comparing it to our own.

Yeah... I thought that most countries didn't have something like the Pledge... I wonder why we have one and most others don't.

Quote:Originally posted by Darunia
Amen, Black Falcon.

I have enough faith and confidence in my fellow man to know that in time, man will evolve beyond the needs of religion. I promise you that within a few centuries, there will be no religion. That's not a threat to all the Jesus nazis in here who are sure to cruficy me for this; it's a prediction. Eventually, even Christians who were brainwashed from childhood to believe what their parents and their parents (etc) believed will wake up and realize this too.

And what do you base your thinking on? In a world of over six billion people, a huge majority of them practice one religion or another. Faith in it's many forms has been around since the dawn of civilization. It will never die. It will never even come close. And though neither of us will be around in a few hundred years, that's a promise I can make and die knowing it will be kept.

Maybe one day you atheists will give up the immature teenage rebellion and find a faith. :love: You're no smarter than us for lacking faith, you just think differently. You're also no better than brimstone preachers, trying to convert people and telling everyone their beliefs are wrong, with no proof backing it up. Atheism is just as much a religion as any, all it lacks is a deity. But not all religions have deities.

Besides, the Christian, Muslim and Buddhist faiths will never die because they are rooted in scientifically proven, established historical fact. Jesus, Mohammad and the Buddah were real people.

"In a world of over six billion people, a huge majority of them practice one religion or another."

I know this--thats why I am ashamed that humanity is so advanced yet still clings to the security blanket of religion. Just like medieval sailors were afraid to sail across the sea for fear of mythological sea monsters, so are people today. As we plot the stars, we'll realize that there are no monsters, and there is no god.

Faith in it's many forms has been around since the dawn of civilization. Are you suggesting that because it's old makes it true...? Religion has been around since the dawn of time, but not Christianity. That being said, according to your faith on time, shouldn't believers of Zeus and Apollo be more credible, since age is so important to credibility? [B] It will never die. It will never even come close. And though neither of us will be around in a few hundred years, that's a promise I can make and die knowing it will be kept. [B] I feel the exact same way about religion dying...[B]

Maybe one day you atheists will give up the immature teenage rebellion and find a faith. [B] There are so many faiths; obviously they can't all be true. The way you talk of "finding a faith" makes it sound as common place as "finding a car" or "getting a new job". You're no smarter than us for lacking faith, you just think differently. You're also no better than brimstone preachers, trying to convert people and telling everyone their beliefs are wrong, with no proof backing it up. Atheism is just as much a religion as any, all it lacks is a deity. But not all religions have deities. I can't think of anything to counter that with. [B/]

Besides, the Christian, Muslim and Buddhist faiths will never die because they are rooted in scientifically proven, established historical fact. Jesus, Mohammad and the Buddah were real people.[B] If I found a faith based on the fact that I'm alive, does that mean it'll never die? Jesus may've lived, but thats all you have. King Arthur may've lived too...doesn't mean he did all the wonderful things you read about

:p

Quote:Originally posted by Darunia
"In a world of over six billion people, a huge majority of them practice one religion or another."

[B]I know this--thats why I am ashamed that humanity is so advanced yet still clings to the security blanket of religion. Just like medieval sailors were afraid to sail across the sea for fear of mythological sea monsters, so are people today. As we plot the stars, we'll realize that there are no monsters, and there is no god.

Faith in it's many forms has been around since the dawn of civilization. Are you suggesting that because it's old makes it true...? Religion has been around since the dawn of time, but not Christianity. That being said, according to your faith on time, shouldn't believers of Zeus and Apollo be more credible, since age is so important to credibility? [B] It will never die. It will never even come close. And though neither of us will be around in a few hundred years, that's a promise I can make and die knowing it will be kept. [B] I feel the exact same way about religion dying...[B]

You seem to misunderstand. I did not state any of those facts to try and make my views more credible. I stated them because they are the reason that you're wrong about religion dying. If nothing humanity has experienced so far has destroyed religion, there's nothing left that can. Remember that the things that destroy faith in some only serve to reaffirm it in others. The notion that religion will someday die is laughable. It'll happen the same day humanity gives up sex.

Quote:Maybe one day you atheists will give up the immature teenage rebellion and find a faith. [B] There are so many faiths; obviously they can't all be true. The way you talk of "finding a faith" makes it sound as common place as "finding a car" or "getting a new job". You're no smarter than us for lacking faith, you just think differently. You're also no better than brimstone preachers, trying to convert people and telling everyone their beliefs are wrong, with no proof backing it up. Atheism is just as much a religion as any, all it lacks is a deity. But not all religions have deities. I can't think of anything to counter that with. [B/]

Actually, if you do your homework you'll note that many major religions share a lot. Christianity and Islam, the two largest religions, are based on a third: Judaism. And the three contradict each other less than you'd think. It's the viewpoints that differ. The prophet Abraham is considered a founding father by all three religions. The others differ fundamentally, but even then some stories told in Hindo, Shinto and Buddhist lore are similar to those in the Bible and Koran.

Quote:Besides, the Christian, Muslim and Buddhist faiths will never die because they are rooted in scientifically proven, established historical fact. Jesus, Mohammad and the Buddah were real people.[B] If I found a faith based on the fact that I'm alive, does that mean it'll never die? Jesus may've lived, but thats all you have. King Arthur may've lived too...doesn't mean he did all the wonderful things you read about

:p

Well, so far as I know King Arthur was a purely fictional character... anyway, the aforementioned faiths aren't based on the fact that these people lived, but rather on the teachings and guidance these people offered. Maybe if you do something profound someone will start a religion in your honor. Talk about poetic justice, eh?

Darunia, as I said it seems all life that will continue to exist or desires to continue existing will inevitably seek religion. To destroy the need for religion requires the destruction for the want of immortality. To destroy that want for immortality means destroying the will to live at all, in other words ALL races that do not desire immortality will become extinct, because desiring immortality is a survival trait that pretty much all life has. Things that don't desire immortality simply put will stop existing, thus the universe favors a desire for immortality. It also favors intelligence. Combine the two and you find creatures desiring religion. Evolution will only make the desire for religion stronger, because if you evolve that out, you have "evolved" a creature that will go extinct because it will stop trying to exist.

That's a very well thought-out concept, DJ, but I don't agree. Religion is just primitive man trying to explain things in nature. Atheists are far more abundant now than in the past. An atheist in medieval europe would've been lynched. I still have enough faith that one day, people who kneel and pray will realize that they're getting no response, and will gradually stop it. Humanity started without religion; it developed it as a tool to ease the transition from mindless ape into evolved human. Now that we're so far along, the tool seems as outmoded as a shoe wedge...it's still widely used, and technically serves a purpose, but who REALLY needs a show wedge.

Did that last thing make any sense...?

Quote:Originally posted by Darunia
That's a very well thought-out concept, DJ, but I don't agree. Religion is just primitive man trying to explain things in nature. Atheists are far more abundant now than in the past. An atheist in medieval europe would've been lynched. I still have enough faith that one day, people who kneel and pray will realize that they're getting no response, and will gradually stop it. Humanity started without religion; it developed it as a tool to ease the transition from mindless ape into evolved human. Now that we're so far along, the tool seems as outmoded as a shoe wedge...it's still widely used, and technically serves a purpose, but who REALLY needs a show wedge.

Did that last thing make any sense...?

If atheists were still lynched today, there probably wouldn't be many either. And there would be more back then if they werent. Your theory is flawed simply because you don't quite understand how people think.

And as I said before, atheism is just as much a religion as anything.

Quote:Originally posted by Darunia
That's a very well thought-out concept, DJ, but I don't agree. Religion is just primitive man trying to explain things in nature. Atheists are far more abundant now than in the past. An atheist in medieval europe would've been lynched. I still have enough faith that one day, people who kneel and pray will realize that they're getting no response, and will gradually stop it. Humanity started without religion; it developed it as a tool to ease the transition from mindless ape into evolved human. Now that we're so far along, the tool seems as outmoded as a shoe wedge...it's still widely used, and technically serves a purpose, but who REALLY needs a show wedge.

Did that last thing make any sense...?

What's so bad about believing in a higher power that you believe it should be cut out entirely from civilization? Is it so wrong to believe that there is an all powerful God who created everything? Is it so wrong to believe that if we follow his teaching when we die we go to heaven? If you can believe that there is no God, why can't I believe that there is?

Grumbler: you're allowed to believe whatever you want, despite the elitest tone flying around here. Now, get back to grumbling to god.

Quote:Darunia, as I said it seems all life that will continue to exist or desires to continue existing will inevitably seek religion. To destroy the need for religion requires the destruction for the want of immortality. To destroy that want for immortality means destroying the will to live at all

Wha-? Are you saying that all athiests are suicidal? The drive for scientific discovery alone is enough incentive to live. So are other things: finding love, trying to change the world, living the simple life/doing what you love, etc. I feel I can live my life just fine without the comfort of a god watching over me.

The subject of "god" is one in which I'm undecided, although I put the idea out of my head, as I believe its irrelevant to my life. If there was a god, I wouldn't believe that it would be so involved with our lives. Good, evil? You can't just lump things into two categories. Live by god's will or suffer in hell? That sounds a little facsist to me; I'll choose my own values, thank you. These are the problems I have with religion... moral guidance, okay, but idealistic, mythological ideas of still existing after death, and that existence being based on how you lived? That's just silly. I'd rather put my actions and my values in my own hands, rather than in the hands of a god.

It doesn't disturb me that there's no god to give justice for those who "do my wrong". It doesn't disturb me that even when I feel the most isolated from people (happens regularly, too), there's no god to understand my woes. The idea that I'll one day I may cease to exist altogether doesn't bother me, as I accept entropy and the fact that nothing can last forever on this earth (along with the fact that I have very small seperation anxiety).

Quote:in other words ALL races that do not desire immortality will become extinct, because desiring immortality is a survival trait that pretty much all life has.

What proof do you have of this? I've always vowed to live with the little, precious time I have on this earth. I don't expect immortality, nor do I fear death. This is actually a little disturbing, as I wouldn't consider myself to be the most emotionally stable person, but eh... I've never considered suicide, nor do I feel I will for a very long time. It'd take a lot for me to come to that, I think. But enough with the small talk.

Quote:Things that don't desire immortality simply put will stop existing, thus the universe favors a desire for immortality. It also favors intelligence. Combine the two and you find creatures desiring religion. Evolution will only make the desire for religion stronger, because if you evolve that out, you have "evolved" a creature that will go extinct because it will stop trying to exist.

I'm sorry, but all of that seems unfounded. How is desirability for immortality linked with intelligence? How does not expecting immortality necessarily make a race less fit to live? That's very confusing...

Weltall, I challenge you to find proof that Jesus existed outside of the four Gospels.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough... I was attempting a bit of a train of logic there. I meant only what I said. I never meant "All athiests are suicidal". Sure there's all those things to live for, which is exactly my point. Creatures have desires that make them want to live. Those that do not go extinct. Why do things want to live? What kind of instinct would say "I want to live, I don't want to live as well"? No, you wish to live, yes? That's why we have reproduction. Things that don't reproduce go extinct. Desire to live obviously includes desire for immortality. So long as life goes on this will ALWAYS be a desire that can NEVER be removed from ANY creature's mentallity without making it cease to desire living at all. Remove the desire for immortality is impossible without removing the desire to continue living at all. It may be supressed, but it's there, and it's the entire reason for scientific endevors. We wish to "go on". That is why humans desire religion. Religion is promised immortality we have thanks to our imaginative abilities. The only way to remove religion is to remove our imaginative abilities OR our desire for immortality. You can't destroy either one without destroying what it means to be human. Thus, I submit to you, religion is a part of humanity.

That is my point. Athiests suicidal? Hardly! My point is that they are hiding from their own humanity.

Very good arguments by everyone.

I think it's funny how this debate over the pledge of allegiance has boiled over into an all-out religion fest.

My countering argument is that I was raised by agnostic parents. Two of my grandparents are Christian, the other two atheist. Out of that unbiased environment, I grew up without any Religios creed. In seventh grade, I hung out with my friend Robbie (some of you may remember him as The Phantom from CS), who is ardently Christian. For a year or two, I tried to be, but then logic persevered. From unbiased foundings, I weighed the logic and atheism won.

Weltall and almost all Christians are raised to believe in God; they never have any choice. They grow up praying just as much as they grow up speaking English and adapting to American culture. Other cultures grow up speaking Hindu or worshipping Allah and adapting to whatever culture. If there were one unifying God of everybody, why does he hide and never show himself...why did he not begin the world with all peoples being Christian...why did he chose to begin his religion at a centered point of the middle east, and why did he used Europeans to spread it throughout the Christian world? One of the 10 commandments is "there shalt be no other gods before me", or whatever it was...that meaning that all non-Christians are hell-bound, that means that 5 out of every 6 people are going to hell...? Do you really believe that? Why would God create us to save only one in six of us. There are so many logical points to be made, and all Christians can do is "have faith" in an unforeseen diety.

Actually the commandment is "you shall have no other gods before me".

Let's see if I can comment on your points.

Quote:If there were one unifying God of everybody, why does he hide and never show himself...

Quote: Why would God create us to save only one in six of us.

God gave people free will; we make the choice about how our life turns out in the end.

[quote]why did he chose to begin his religion at a centered point of the middle east[/qoute]

The Jews were at one point his chosen people [if you want the why of that just read the bible, I won't try to explain it all here], so Jesus began teaching first to the Jews and later his disciples began teaching to the non-Jews.

A slight misconception. It's not "following the teachings of Christ" that get one into heaven, because that's works. The whole thing centers on the idea that no one can ever earn their way into heaven no matter what they do. It's essentially depending on one person to get you there, regardless of your own inadequecy.

Another thing, Darunia, you presume too much. From what I understand, Weltall only recently turned to God, and was in fact NOT raised to be a Christian. Same here, I was risen in a household much like your own, with very agnostic parents who didn't really care. You seem to be so stunned about how someone could actually choose to be Christian that you assume that everyone must simply be simply programmed that way from environment. Watch Iron Giant man, you choose who you want to be.

Okay, if God gave us free will... why in (God's name? Heh) is he so harsh to those who don't believe in him? Why send us to a place where we'll burn and suffer for all eternity? That doesn't sound like a supreme-being at all, but a very arrogant, power-abusing being with human qualities, rather than an understanding, compassionate being who I'd LIKE to believe in IF there is a god. God loves each and every one of us? Pffft.

[edit]: Just saw DJ's post: alright, same deal. Only one being (Jesus Christ) can lead us to heaven... but why would this "eternal living" be so selective? Don't you find that a little unnerving? That implies that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and confesses their sins will be saved. Why can't one simply be a good person? Why must one be obliged to believe in Jesus Christ and confess his/her sins just to live eternally?

Logic doesn't only exist for the "unbiased" agnostics. I think the fact that you, Darunia, say you were raised unbiased reveals your own bias that agnosticism is free from any affecting beliefs. Fact is, anyone raised by anyone will be affected by their caretaker's beliefs. Whether or not the effects are major or minor is the only differing aspect. What your biases tell you is that faith is completely illogical, when most people with even a slight background in theology can tell you that there is logic to faith. That's what theology is. If you actually wanted to know, I could attempt to explain why God must send people to hell, but the issue is extrememly sticky and I don't have mastery of it. I'd really rather not, because I wouldn't want to misrepresent something that many smarter people have thought out carefully.

Quote:Originally posted by Sacred Jellybean
Okay, if God gave us free will... why in (God's name? Heh) is he so harsh to those who don't believe in him? Why send us to a place where we'll burn and suffer for all eternity? That doesn't sound like a supreme-being at all, but a very arrogant, power-abusing being with human qualities, rather than an understanding, compassionate being who I'd LIKE to believe in IF there is a god. God loves each and every one of us? Pffft.

[edit]: Just saw DJ's post: alright, same deal. Only one being (Jesus Christ) can lead us to heaven... but why would this "eternal living" be so selective? Don't you find that a little unnerving? That implies that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and confesses their sins will be saved. Why can't one simply be a good person? Why must one be obliged to believe in Jesus Christ and confess his/her sins just to live eternally?

I don't pretend to know God's motives, no one knows why or why he doesn't do things. But, do you think that God should send everyone to heaven despite what they did in life just becuase he has the power to do so? He IS compassionate. He did send his only son to the earth to die so that people COULD go to heaven if they believed in him and obeyed him.

Now that's just silly.

I won't pretend I know everything on the subject either, because honestly, I've barely had any religious education.

Based on what you're saying, though, don't you think the notion that people will be given eternal life based on conformity to be a little silly? Doesn't it distress you that this Christian/Non-christian, black/white method is the determination for eternal life?

I feel that if the only way to achieve eternal life is to see things through one, uniform perspective and conform to one set of values and beliefs, then the pursuit is too big a sacrifice. All of these beliefs seem too idealistic for me to logically believe in the first place; why should I live my life and put my faith in such an uncertain future? Why should I throw my freedom in beliefs and values away for something so ambiguous? For faux security that everything will be alright? To purge my loneliness and convince myself that a supreme being is looking out for me, simply for selling my soul away to him?

Quote:Originally posted by Sacred Jellybean
Okay, if God gave us free will... why in (God's name? Heh) is he so harsh to those who don't believe in him? Why send us to a place where we'll burn and suffer for all eternity? That doesn't sound like a supreme-being at all, but a very arrogant, power-abusing being with human qualities, rather than an understanding, compassionate being who I'd LIKE to believe in IF there is a god. God loves each and every one of us? Pffft.

[edit]: Just saw DJ's post: alright, same deal. Only one being (Jesus Christ) can lead us to heaven... but why would this "eternal living" be so selective? Don't you find that a little unnerving? That implies that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and confesses their sins will be saved. Why can't one simply be a good person? Why must one be obliged to believe in Jesus Christ and confess his/her sins just to live eternally?

Hellfire is not even part of the bible.The word soul in hebrew means living vessel with blood .Once the soul died it was over no afterlife.The selcted few who did go to heaven were part of the anointed class the rest would be brought back as imortal humans on earth in peace and paradise.The bible clearly states that god does not enjoy the torment of anyone.

Firey tornment was fabricated in the middle ages to scare people from sinning.Just the same as Jews once belived children could sin in the womb during jesus day , which he later cleared up.

as for your other question , would you say to your dad "I will be a good guy anyways "! "so why should I listen to you"?

In fact, I challenge anyone here to find evidence that Jesus ever existed, outside of the four gospels. Seriously. Try it. The Internet. Books. Ancient scrolls of wisdom. Post-its dating from the second century. Anything.

Quote: "I will be a good guy anyways "! "so why should I listen to you"?

Um, I wouldn't want my father to control my beliefs, either. Of course, it's vital for parents to raise their children with love and compassion and certainly guide them, but as far as controlling their beliefs? I disagree. Anyone with the proper intelligence and maturity should be free to make his/her own decisions. And I feel the same way about religion. I disagree with disposing of my own values to conform to another's in favor of comfort and security from a being I can't see, hear, or feel inside my heart.