"that makes you believe in him?"

nothing makes me believe in him; if God wanted to force people to believe in him, he would, and you would believe in him too Beleif in God is just as much as choice as not beleiving in him.

i also did a ninja edit to the above post, might want to read it again.

> avogadro wrote:

>nothing makes me believe in him; if God wanted to force people to believe in him, he would, and you would believe in him too Beleif in God is just as much as choice as not beleiving in him.

But he doesn't exist.

If nothing makes you believe in him, and it's just a personal choice for you to think that he's there, why didn't you choose Allah, or just create an invisible friend? If you were born in Iran say, would you know he was there, or would you believe in Allah?

> "Christianity is a great set of beliefs and values."
Like the examples given in the bible? At the risk of going backwards, the Bible says you are allowed to hold slaves, and apparently the Lord said that you should stone people that do not believe in him. Perhaps since it's the Bible, and apparently you are telling me since the Bible isn't that important it's your choice that you don't need to listen to the Lord on this occasion.

> Econ wrote:

It is pretty obvious that we are in the matrix.>

lol. You can be dismissive of the possibility, but it's an alternative explanation you can't disprove.

I guess I would say this:

Your OP was, what is called, a "shotgun" post.

Now I know that you probably did not intend it to be; you most likely intended it to be some sort of long trained thought process to spark conversation. 

The problem is, as another poster mention, you put out way too much.  The only way to field something like that is to nip it a little at a time.  I will be more than happy to engage you if you wish to present arguments one item at a time, but you cannot keep jumping back and forth when I present a counter argument.

And my thanks also for acknowledging that your understanding of Christian Scripture was flawed and misrepresented.

> Red Phoenix wrote:

> I guess I would say this:

> Your OP was, what is called, a "shotgun" post.

> Now I know that you probably did not intend it to be; you most likely intended it to be some sort of long trained thought process to spark conversation. 

Not so much a train of thoughts as such, but a list of individual points, that sometimes flow from one to the other.

>The problem is, as another poster mention, you put out way too much.  The only way to field something like that is to nip it a little at a time.  I will be more than happy to engage you if you wish to present arguments one item at a time, but you cannot keep jumping back and forth when I present a counter argument.

I know it was too much. I was inviting you to choose other points to talk about, but since you ask me to provide some, I will. I still haven't visited this website, but I will use it as my next question to you: "Why does God hate amputees?". Surely some amputees are great God-loving and saving-the-world and helping-fellow-man kind of people. Surely he would grant some of these extra people a replacement limb, so that they can carry on their great work. He grants extra replacement limbs to Salamanders, why not humans?

How about the good ol' evolution / creationism. There is obviously a lot that can be debated here; entire threads are dedicated to it. I'll attempt to keep it simple. If evolution is a pile of #$%#, then why do some snakes have usless pelvises, some animals living in the dark have skin grow over their eyes over long periods of time, and how do viruses mutate? If you provide a response typical of Avo: "not all christians believe in that" I'll be pretty disapointed

>And my thanks also for acknowledging that your understanding of Christian Scripture was flawed and misrepresented.

This is exactly what I was worried about. I used the wrong word "founding" instead of say "fundamental" or "central" ... lacking a better word at the moment.....  yes a significant mistake but my impression of the bible is not flawed. If thousands or milions of people don't turn to the bible for guidance (on ways to act, what to think, morals to adopt) each day then I'm a monkeys uncle (as opposed to a monkey being my "Great times one million" uncle ).

>> "Do you want any others?"

>read the entire book of Leviticus and then tell me, the authors intention was to justify slavery

You didn't answer the question.

I don't need to read the whole book in order to reply to this, others have done it for me. Anyways, there are no ambiguous phrases in that paragraph. It's explicitly clear.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined."  United States Senator James Henry Hammond. 3"

How about other books?

"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)"

>>"what makes you believe in him"

>i have already explained nothing makes me beleive in him, its a choice, its free will. you can beleive in him, or you can beleive he doesnt exist, theres no solid evidence either way. both are personal choices; one choice is to respect where you cam from, and the other is rebel against the past for no reason, like calling green, black for the rest of your life.

ie following everyone else is what makes you believe in him. You do not base your judgements on anything, other than following others, and feeling nice on the inside. "There is no solid evidence either way" I like this - I agree there is no evidence for the presence of a God... thanks for owning up (Flint said once he has seen proof....hmm).  The evidence is always mounting for science. For every century that goes by more myths promoted by the church are dispelled.

Your last line is just plain dumb. 'Rebel against the past for no reason' WTF? If you like the past so much, go build a castle and live in it. Science has moved us forward from past beliefs while we can still hold on to tradition. Tradition =/= beliefs.

You didn't answer why, if God and Allah are the same, do their holy scriptures tell you to kill each other?

Edit: PS yes I have now visited two "atheist websites" in order to obtain those quotes. It's too bad, I was looking forward to the one I had mentioned to Phoenix to being my first.

>> "You didn't answer why, if God and Allah are the same, do their holy scriptures tell you to kill each other?"

>they dont. and you can continue to take things out of context, and twist them to try to disprove religion, but the only one you're fooling is yourself.

Tell me where the twisting is. Once again it is unambigious. Just one of many examples:

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."  (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

5:72 - "Unbelievers are those that say:'God is the Messiah, the son of Mary."
109:1-6 -  "Say: 'Unbelievers, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship.'"
47:3 - "When you meet the Unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly."

>>"ie following everyone else is what makes you believe in him."

>the only reason you believe anything you believe is because of what other people have done, and you're just following.

hahahaha. Quite a large difference to saying "I believe in God because Im following my parents/my priest/my friends/whoever because they tell me there is an all-powerful invisible being" to saying "I don't believe in God because as time goes by experiments and observations have repeatedly shown the churches teachings to be incorrect. And claiming there are invisble beings is absurd"

As I said at the start of the OP. I was taken to a sunday school, church youth group kind of thing. I chose not to follow them.

>religion and science are not at war and have never been at war.

People trying to get creationism taught in schools would believe differently. Anyway, you are taking my comment out of context. You said no evidence whether or not God exists. I said scientific discoveries have consistently proven the churhces teachings to be incorrect. It is literally impossible to prove whether or not he exists in the traditional sense. If he's not there, he can't leave a note saying "I never existed". The best we can do is look at what the Vatican and the Church, people who are meant to be the closest to God, have said over the years. And they have consistently got it wrong.

Please discuss in more detail what made you choose to believe in God. Your perspective that there is no proof to discount the presence of a God, so you'd better believe, just in case?

edit: I think I said earlier tradition =/= religion.

> Red Phoenix wrote:

> You still fail to understand Christian Scripture in its proper context.

> It flows from the Church.  The Church does not flow from it.

No I do not misunderstand this. Quoting myself: "If thousands or milions of people don't turn to the bible for guidance (on ways to act, what to think, morals to adopt) each day then I'm a monkeys uncle".

Important Point:
By saying "the church made the bible not the other way around" whislt ignoring my quote (which explains why I talk about the Bible often) you are inadvertadly saying that the Bible is not important and when talking about Christianity, or the things that Christains do, things that they believe, etc, the Bible should not come into it. What a joke.  I've also talked about any other comments, releases, instructions, policies etc released by the Vatican (check to see how many times I have used this word). You have chosen to ignore this. edit: These people are the closest to God. If they haven't got it right, how can you? Why not go and tell them, see how many people listen to you.

> I am, again, not convinced that you read my earlier posts in their entirety.  You keep harping on the bible this and the bible that.  Until you let go of this straw man that you have presented, your other "points" are moot.

This is crap. I have read your posts. You asked me for items you would like to talk about. I provided them and I didn't mention the Bible in doing so. You ignored the items I suggested we talk about.

"Tell me where the twisting is. Once again it is unambigious. Just one of many examples:"

read the entire book, instead of taking things out of context. what you're doing is like taking the tortoise and the hare story, ignoring, all of it, except the end, where the tortoise wins (its not ambiguious, the tortoise beats the hare in a race), and saying, look, this story says a tortoise would beat the hare! its stupid! also, the part you're quoting says worship a different God. they worship the same God, so what you claim still isnt true. its like your brain is the size of a pea and you cant interpret anything other then literally.

> Red Phoenix wrote:

> You do not get to decide how it is woven into Christianity.

> Just because I call a spade a heart does not make it so.

Can you tell me what you are talking about here. The nature of forums and the size of the post means it's not easy to tell what you are talking about.

> I say nothing of the sort.  Please do not try and push straw under MY clothing.  I am no straw man.

haha you are funny. You miss the point while trying to call me a straw man. Nice one. I'll try to break it down for you. I hate this but I'm repeating cause you are a bit slow.

1. I say the Bible is important as many many people refer to it each day on guidance for morals, beliefs, ways to behave etc. Therefore I am debating the things mentioned in this book.

2. This book is written by holy men and released/produced by the church and men who were much closer to the time of Jesus, and are close to God.

3. Priests and others refer to the book and quote it when helping others.

4. Therefore it is quite reasonable to debate what is contained in this book as part of a wider debate about religion and christianity.

5. You are telling me crap. You are saying "this book was made by the church" and then ramble off a bunch of airey-fairy comments that have nothing to do with the subject matter and just try to call me the straw man. Look in the mirror.

>And with your Vatican comment you are yet again dodging the issue.  Are you so stone hearted that you cannot be instructed?

O M F G. Really - the real God, are you listening? Please tell me that this guy is not serious? This has nothing to do with the point I was making. Idiot. Although to be nice to you I will answer your question: Look back in this thread - I have admitted when I have learnt something or made a mistake. You have not.

> Is your mind so closed that you cannot review simple evidence?  Some scientific method.  Hmph.

What evidence? You have provided NONE.

edit: You are still not replying to the other couple of items that I suggested we talk about.
You quite plainly asked for things to talk about. I provided them, and then you reneged. It must have been too hard to talk about.

> Justinian I wrote:

> Christianity isn't empirically testable, and therefore its epistemic value is about as equivalent as Zeus, the Spaghetti Monster, or cloaked aliens on the moon.

Agreed. That's why we have to make do with things that we can observe/test to decide for ourselves (some people can't) as to whether or not to believe. If we can't test it, we can't observe it, and all we have is some guy telling us about it, then we get a very poor foundation.

edit: I welcome Phoenix or avo to talk about this.