How many times per day do you pray?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Huh? I figgered you as way too cynical to be religious.

It's in no way incompatible with cynicism. I don't believe in a conscious afterlife, prayer, or any form of divine judgement/karma. Furthermore, even if any "deity" is actually aware of my individual existance, I reckon they don't actually give a toss.

Religious faith, or a propensity to it, is one part of what makes us human. In my case, it provides me with (to me) a rational explanation for why I'm here and why stuff happens. It's also an attractive framework for life and provides a damned good excuse for a few good parties every year.

I can't see how cynicism excludes any part of that.

[Alexander's Horse]

typical English eccentric

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Fah. I laugh at your colonial conservatism.

[Ben Kenobi]

Presumably that YHWH would, but so far there is no repeatable evidence of this.

Good. So it is possible for YHWH to do these things. Is it hard to believe that given an omnipotent, loving God, that he would try to make himself known to his creation?

Or how about this. When a man writes a book, that book bears clues as to the nature of the author. Why should it be different with God, and his creation?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I'm curious about people who vote the first option.

I am one of those people. I didn't read all the options before choosing. Curiosity satisfied?

[Ben Kenobi]

You don't, but plenty of other religious people do. It's quite arbitrary.

I would think their objection to be more on grounds of taste, than scripture.

Again.. it is arbitrary. Some people's religion might say it's OK, others not. But there is no reason to prefer one over the other.

Getting back to Christianity, it is very clear the purposes of marriage as established by God. So to say that because different religions differ on this issue is quite different from saying that Christians differ on this issue.

By any reasonable measure of proof. God's existence cannot be proved logically, so we are thrown back on empirical proofs, and there is simply no proof other than the uncorroborated testimony of some people. It's less of a stretch to believe that they are mad or full of it, than it is to believe that God's existence is unproven.

Reasonable measure of proof? I challenge your assertion that God cannot be proven logically.

Fine. I can accept that. But its the best we can do now with publicly available evidence. Theorizing about God has failed to produce any such evidence.

It's like measuring the ocean with a yardstick. You are using the wrong tool.

Hegel is rubbish. His logic, which underpins much of his ideas, has been superseded by the propositional and predicate calculus.

You should be sure to notify the commies of their folly.

What evidence?

Of God? Of Christ's ministry hear on Earth, or of both?

Our natural constitution.

So why is it that many things that are considered virtuous act against the dictates of our constition? That we should help those unable to help themselves, rather than beating them up and taking their stuff?

Is being further destroyed as we seek. In 50 years we will understand enough about the brain to know exactly how this happened. As it stands today, all the evidence points to this conclusion.

So then, you admit that the evidence out there today defends the principle that we are of a different mould than the other animals?

Different in degree, and perhaps some capacities are different. But that in no way requires a transcendental explanation.

Is our reason solely a product of the natural world? This is what leads me to believe in a transcendental origin, of at least part of our reason.

The theory of emergent principles, that given a sufficiently complex arrangement, that it will develop intelligence, is an interesting one, but unproven, and speculative. All the evidence we have points to our reason being of a transcendental rather than a natural origin, because we do not know how nature can form our mind.

Perhaps your version is, but that is arbitrary. Someone who believes that God will save us from global warming or that Armageddon will come first will not agree with you. And you are in no better position than they are, because religious beliefs are evidence transcendent.

I would argue that even though we are told that armageddon approaches, and to be ready for the return of Christ, this does not absolve us of our responsibilities to others, and to the world around us, as stewards. For what good would it be to wait for his coming, and be cast into hell for our lack of faith in Christ? Are we not, by secluding ourselves, like the one man who buried his talent in the sand?

I could make exactly the same presupposition for Gerald the super space goat. It is arbitrary.

No you could not. There is nothing to believe that a super space goat would have omnipotence, or any of the characteristics attributed to God.

Ones that can be tested against the world.

Our presence here is enough, I would think, given the probability of life arising here on earth, let alone intelligent life.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Agathon
Still, not free of the God rubbish.

I couldn't care less where you drink, as long as there do not exist institutions that glorify irrationality and a mediaeval view of the world.

It's silly to use "medieval" term as an offence.
And what's so bad in religion itself?
What do You find so bad in Christian view of the world except for beief in God itself?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Heresson


It's silly to use "medieval" term as an offence.
And what's so bad in religion itself?
What do You find so bad in Christian view of the world except for beief in God itself?

Let's face it, the moral code that Christianity quotes came from much earlier precursors going back to Indian and Hammurabi codes, which were the result of the growing size and order of society. The morals don't come from religion, they come from the development of early civilisation. And they predate the 10 commandments et al by a long time.

[Sandman]

Hardly ever. If God exists, he certainly pays no heed to prayer, anyway.

[JohnT]

None.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Let's face it, the moral code that Christianity quotes came from much earlier precursors going back to Indian and Hammurabi codes, which were the result of the growing size and order of society. The morals don't come from religion, they come from the development of early civilisation. And they predate the 10 commandments et al by a long time.

Moral code of Christianity is not 10 commandements.
Moral code of Christianity is universal love, even for enemies. It is somewhat different from Hammurabi's code.
Also, God acts through people.

[Straybow]

Depending on definition of prayer I said 8. Full concentration and sizable duration usually only twice, but smaller sessions here and there throughout the day.