Ah, the sweet, refreshing smell of Atheism in the morning

[Kidlicious]

Don't lie. All of Jesus's disciples abandoned something to send their lives as a wandering vagabond with him. Yes, this included abandoning their wives and children to be "enlightened" pieces of dog **** who abandoned their children. **** them. ****, Jesus and **** anyone who says it is ok for men to abandon their progeny.

We can be sure that the families (if any) were taken care of.

[Kidlicious]

Absolutely, I find the idea of someone sacrificing their entire life to others without enjoying any of the joys of the world to be a complete waste, and something that religion is squarely responsible for. Robbing people of happiness with a fake promise of later reward.

Sin is more a way to distract you from your unhappiness, than it is a true source of happiness. Are you so shallow that you believe that sinning is a way to make yourself happy?

[Kidlicious]

My point exactly. I guess I am an empiricist; if there is no evidence on the one side and more evidence on the other i would lean towards the one that had the evidence rather than the one that disregards the evidence and assumes what I may have thought initially is correct even in view of opposing evidence. Using things such Occam's Razor points towards the simple explanation rather than the one where a superior being has blessed this particular, backward little speck of dust in the universe with beings created in his image.

I was raised in a religious household but once I approached things rationally the holes in the story become too great. I appreciate the contribution religions have made to human history and can see the need for an explanation for the fact that we exist. I can also appreciate that the idea that ones' life is inherently pointless (except maybe to give future generations with my genes a better chance of surviving) is a tough sell to the human psyche. I also appreciate the comfort and support religions give to people in difficult times, and can even understand that some people are religious for the feeling of belonging to a particular group.

That however doesn't make it any more realistic or likely to be true. As long as people accept that they find comfort etc. in something that is unlikely to be true I can rationalise someone belonging to a religion. Those people that believe that the Bible is 100% the true voice of God are deluded.

You say you examined the evidence. That begs the question. What evidence did you examine? Everyone has their own opinion about what evidence there is to the question of whether or not God exists etc... For example, some believe the the problem of evil is evidence that God can not be omnipotent or good. Others, like myself, do not see that as evidence for God not to exist. Now you can say that rational people believe that the problem of evil is good evidence and deluded people don't but is that really scientific?

On another part of your argument I agree. The fact that a religion does good, does not make it true.

[Kidlicious]

Truth is the true value of a variable, and we can approximate truth by carrying out well-designed experiments, or if this not possible, collating the evidence and drawing conclusions. As we cannot run a model where one universe has a superior being and one is formed through the laws of physics (to compare which one best fits our universe), I have to look at the existing evidence and conclude from there that there is no superior being.

I think you presuppose with your argument that if God exists that he would prove his existence, or at least make it possible for us to calculate the probability of him existing and then make an educated guess. If you are going to go by a calculated probability of the existence of God I encourage you to do so in a serious manner and use the scientific method to calculate a precise number and then really ask yourself skeptically if the probability is accurate and whether or not it truly tells you something meaningful. If you can't do this, and I expect that you can't, I say that a leap of faith is necessary.

I will explain why it is important to make a leap of faith for the person who chooses to believe in God. If you choose not to believe in God I think it's reasonable to think of God's existence in terms of probability, but those who choose to believe in God a total commitment is necessary. Consider a women who is in love with a man and chooses to marry him. If she is only reasonably certain that he truly loves her then she will not trust him and the marriage may very well fail, or it will at least have problems in the trust department. But if she makes a leap of faith, and is 100% certain that he loves her, the marriage will be more successful and rewarding. I should say that that will only be the case if she is right about his love, but if she isn't the marriage will fail anyway. The person who chooses to believe in God also must make a leap of faith to have a successful religious experience. Some will argue that this is not the case, but I won't go there for now, unless someone insists.

[kentonio]

Sin is more a way to distract you from your unhappiness, than it is a true source of happiness. Are you so shallow that you believe that sinning is a way to make yourself happy?

Why would your definition of sin mean anything to me?

[Kidlicious]

Why would your definition of sin mean anything to me?

Your claim is that I'm giving up sin, and that that makes me unhappy.

[kentonio]

No, my claim is that people who give up pleasure in life to sacrifice totally for others are losing out. You're the one who apparently defines pleasure as sin.

[Kidlicious]

No, my claim is that people who give up pleasure in life to sacrifice totally for others are losing out. You're the one who apparently defines pleasure as sin.

Just the opposite. I don't define sin as pleasure, you do.

[Ben Kenobi]

One of the reasons believers tend to respect Nietzsche was that he was honest about what it meant to fully reject a Christian worldview.

Indeed. Neitzsche's pretty intense. He lays it all out for you - that you have to choose. You can't just ignore the questions that he raises.

[Ben Kenobi]

Doing something because we believe that is God's will doesn't mean we are just doing God's will to "get into heaven" (a lot of us don't even believe a seperate sphere of heaven is the end goal anyways), but because in doing the will of our Creator, in loving God and loving others, we fulfill our purpose and in doing so find true joy and freedom.

We were not made for this earth. Our true home is in heaven, not here.

[Ben Kenobi]

but why do you think that your prepackaged meal is the right one? How, when confronted by a throng of religions all claiming to be the right one, did you determine which one was really the right one?

This is a really good question, Onadera. May I give my answer?

For me - it was the Gospels. If you know anything about textual criticism, we have more copies of the Gospels than any other book in ancient times. Think of it like a heirarchy - we can be more sure that that which was written in the Gospels is what was actually written down - than anything else. Julius Caesar - you name it - the Gospels are superior. The choice is to doubt the Gospels and doubt everything else (Neitzsche's choice), or to accept the Gospels, and accept the rest of what we know as history.

Then, I had the question posed to me by CS Lewis in the Abolition of Man. (Which was a gift from a friend of mine). He made the point - Dualism - the problem with Dualism - is that they believe there is a good God and an evil God. But how can that be? If they are both God - then they both can't be omnipotent. Dualism gives them both their own realms and balance - ergo both of them are limited and not truly God. God is omnipotent, etc. The same principle applies to the other pantheons, the Norse pantheon, the Greeks, the Romans, etc.

So that leaves just 3. Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

Going from there - Jesus makes several claims. He claims not to be a prophet (as Islam, and Judaism claim), he claims to be God himself. So the question becomes - how did Jesus prove that he was God - that he was the Son of God? It goes right to the resurrection of Christ. If he truly resurrected - then he is God and Islam and Judaism are wrong and Christianity is right. If he did not - then Christianity is wrong.

So, examining the evidence - probably the best in the Gospels - is the reaction of the Jews. After Christ died on the cross and was buried, the Jews argued the next day - asking the Christians to supply the body that they stole. Ergo - the Jews presuppose the empty tomb - that Christ was no longer in the tomb that he was buried. So not only do you have to explain how Christ, who died on the cross, was able to get out of the tomb. The Gospels even say that Peter - when he first got there- saw the shroud, still wrapped, and believed.

Those three questions - took me about a year to figure out. I became a Christian back in March of 2001. I became a Catholic in April of 2005, 4 years later - after I went over all the Catholic doctrines. For me - I decided that Catholicism was correct - because that's what the history says. Catholicism came first - not the individual protestant churches. Catholicism is the Church founded by Christ himself - not the protestant churches and they have an unbroken line of apostolic succession all the way from Christ to now. I have Shi Huangdi here - to thank for bringing me over because he kept hammering away at this point.

I can't speak for Elok - but I believe that Catholics and the Orthodox are really one church that hasn't quite figured that out yet.

[Kidlicious]

Except the Catholic church is not the first church. That's like saying the methodist church is the same church it was when it was founded. It's not. It's a different church now.

[Ben Kenobi]

Except the Catholic church is not the first church. That's like saying the methodist church is the same church it was when it was founded. It's not. It's a different church now.

What does Apostolic Succession mean to you, Kidicious?

[Kidlicious]

What does Apostolic Succession mean to you, Kidicious?

It is a non-biblical doctrine created in response to what the church called heretics.

[Kidlicious]

I think a better point is that even if the apostles intended the doctrine, they did so so that the church would remain just as they planned. But the church did not remain just as they planned. Therefore, what reason is there for apostolic succession or to be a catholic as opposed to a member of another christian church.

edit: I actually don't think being a catholic is wrong, but saying one should be one because it was the first church is wrong.