You have one chance (one question/statement) to make an R/T opponent change his/her mind.

[BurtWorm]

What would you do with that chance?

:popcorn:







PS: I'm thinking about mine. Take your time if you need to.

[ZombieHorde]

1. Is an "R/T opponent" someone who opposes religion and theology, or someone who opposes this board?

Something else perhaps?

[BurtWorm]

2. You have a third guess.

;-)

[T Wolf]

3. Whatever R/T is, I really do not think that it is possible to change the mind, especially if R/T

refers to any repuke/thug (is that it?).

If we cannot convince some "Democrats / liberals / progressives" that the public option is a worthless sell-out far short of single-payer, universal care as provided in most of the rest of the civilized world, how the hell are you going to convince a cretin who does not even believe in evolution or gravity?

They are unreachable and need to be eliminated - at least from having any influence on our lives.

[BurtWorm]

4. (look at the name of the forum)

[laconicsax]

5. Call them a sinner, threaten them with hell, and then tell them about Christ's salvation.

[BurtWorm]

6. Here's mine

“If God is omniscient and omnipotent, why didn’t he make it clear to everyone what he wanted of them?”

[BurtWorm]

7. Elaboration

If he wanted us to worship him and live according to his laws and believe in him with all our hearts, and live all our lives for his glory, why didn’t he program that into us? Why did he leave it up to a select few of his special creatures to grok it and communicate it to the rest of us? And how do we know they’re grokking it right? Why should we trust them?


I know what this kind of question always elicits from the other side in answer: The Lord has His reasons. But this doesn’t answer the question about why just a select few supposedly get it and the rest of us have to get it second-hand from them. Why should we trust a god who communicates so dismally about something supposedly so important to him?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

17. Because we're free to choose....

It's not "faith" if you're not given any alternative. "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" had a humorous riff on the subject.

[BurtWorm]

18. So faith for faith's sake is important to god?

What a fucked up being!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

22. Yes, faith is important.

If I put a gun to your head and say, "Tell me you love me or I'll blow your friggin' head off," then I can't really be sure if you love me or if you're just afraid of the consequences.

God gives us the opportunity to have faith, which we can accept or reject. Now you might say that God has already locked and loaded, because if I reject him, he's going to send me to hell.

But hell is over-rated actually, especially if you've ever visited Detroit (rimshot).

But seriously, folks, ask a Christian why they follow Christ and it's likely that the LAST answer you're going to get is, "Because I'm afraid of going to hell." In a wierd sort of way, hell is pretty much irrelevant to Christians. The whole burning lake of fire and brimstone thing? Meh. Sure it sounds pretty bad, possibly even worse than a Kenny G. concert, but since I don't plan to go to either one of those, I can pretty much forget about it.

[BurtWorm]

24. So you pick and choose what to believe from the banquet of beliefs previous xians left for you?

You just take the beliefs that feel right or good to you? Do you ever wonder why the banquet consists of those particular beliefs?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

25. Pretty much. Yes.

My relationship with God isn't based exclusively upon my grandparents' relationship. You'll find that even within specific denominations, there is a broad range of understanding of what the life of faith means. While fundamentalists try to enforce literalism, they're pretty much the minority and will likely remain so.

[BurtWorm]

26. I'm just curious: if you get to pick and choose beliefs that feel comfortable to you

how do you know faith is important? I mean, it sounds like a lifestyle choice, like which TV network to watch

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

28. Sort of an obtuse question....

The whole proposition (and this is true for any form of deism) relies on faith because you're believing in something that can't, ultimately, be proven. When you get right down to, you can't prove the non-existent of a Supreme Being either, so deists and atheists are both going to the same ontological well.

But we use separate buckets so as to avoid cooties.

[BurtWorm]

29. You're a deist, then?

Do deists pray? Do you make offerings to the blind watchmaker?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

32. In the general sense of the word...

Not in the particular philosophy held by many of the Founding Fathers.

No offerings, burnt of otherwise, to the Blind Watchmaker (pesky ADA requirements!). But I do provide financial support to my congregation, which in turn provides support to a host of institutions (such as a downtown free clinic, a group home for recovering addicts, and Agape community meals).

[rd_kent]

127. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

When you get right down to, you can't prove the non-existent of a Supreme Being either, so deists and atheists are both going to the same ontological well.


And, again, wrong.

[Silent3]

30. So you can forget about hell so long as your own ass is saved?

Screw everyone else who isn't good-hearted enough or wise enough or noble enough or blessed with enough grace or whatever else you think it is that gives you the faith that saves your ass, no skin off your back if all those other people are condemned to eternal suffering?

What kind of deity worthy of your faith constructs a universe with rules like that?

Why is believing things without evidence a virtue? Is believing anything without evidence, like believing in an invisible pink unicorn that lives in my sock drawer a virtuous thing, or only believing some sort of creator-deity that you custom design from cafeteria-style religious and spiritual beliefs?

If carrots and sticks aren't what it's all about, if in fact you somehow twist this around so that the act of faith is there to make reward and punishment superfluous, why do you believe in a deity who punishes so severely rather than, say, gives the winners of the faith test a gold star and a place with a nicer view in a comfortable afterlife shared by everyone?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

33. Wow. That's whole lot of hostility you've got there...

I'm not even sure where to begin with this, and I'm not entirely certain that it would be worth my while to make the attempt.

Suffice to say that you and I both have exactly the same amount of grace, and it's sufficient to last us more than a lifetime.

I believe that people are capable of being better than they are. I don't always see a lot to confirm that belief, but I'll stick with it. I believe that someday the Cubs will win the World Series. I believe one of these days, nations will stop trying to anihilate one another and just try to get along.

But in the meantime, an invisible pink unicorn in the sock drawer is way cool!

[Silent3]

35. The hostility is a reaction to the inherent...

...thoughtlessness, selfishness, and cruelty of your point of view. That hostility is exacerbated by your refusal to face this, your casual willingness to duck the issue.

For cover, you spout puppy dogs and rainbows about believing "people are capable of being better than they are", keeping your attention carefully averted from two big questions:

What does faith have to do with "being better"?

Why should the consequences of not "being better" (especially if not deeds, but faith, is the ultimate metric of betterment) be such hideous punishment for those who don't make the grade?

If you think I'm hostile, take a good look at the deity you claim to believe in. It's got me beat by a mile.

But don't worry. I'm sure you can find a way to gush joy about the beauty of your faith and hope for humankind, yadda, yadda, an pretend like the problems I bring up are simply my problems. "Gosh, gee, what is he so angry about!? Me and my faith are a ray of sweet sunshine!" :eyes:

[JerseygirlCT]

60. Well, because love is never something

given or taken merely on objective evidence. There's always that leap of faith. Likewise, love can't be compelled, only offered freely.

(And not speaking for Jeff, but some of us don't subscribe to the idea of hell at all).

[Silent3]

64. I appreciate that you aren't subscribing to the idea of hell...

...but I also think you're talking about a very different meaning and kind of "faith" too.

[JerseygirlCT]

59. personally, I think the whole

hell idea is another human construct. I cannot imagine a loving God who would have any need to punish some of the very people that God loves. I think people can choose not to be with God, but that the door is always open.

(But I have to say, I enjoyed your delivery above, rimshots and all!) :)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

61. It's a centuries-old question...

The party-line among Lutherans is "by grace we are saved through faith." But what about those people who didn't accept Christ? Ghandi burning in a firey pit for all eternity? Sounds like the actions of an awfully arbitrary God. Unless these are really just constructs that we humans have created. Crime must be punished, after all.

Dante theorized that the "virtuous pagans" would go to Limbo (along with all those unbaptized babies) because even back then, they punishment seemed a little too steep compared to the so-called crime.

[JerseygirlCT]

63. Yes, that's why I'm a universalist

I simply cannot comprehend the thinking that could hold both a loving God and eternal punishment. That idea is so much more human. As you say, the idea that crime must be punished. And I suspect some people, who prized their own virtue, might be a bit pissed off to find that everyone was invited to the party. I think it's possible that a person could intentionally refuse that full communion with God - but I also think the door remains open for eternity. And time doesn't matter much to God.

[damyank913]

134. If god is God, then why create a being, give him free choice...

...all the while knowing that he was condemning that same being to eternal damnation? That is fucked up!!!

[damyank913]

140. For those hung up on atheism as a belief system...

I choose to believe that things I can touch or experience with my senses are real. I choose to believe that empiricism is a good way to establish what the truth is and what to believe. I burned myself when I touched the fire; I learned not to touch fire because of the welt my last experience gave me. This is a phenomenon that I can reproduce at any time. Now I believe that fire can burn. Is this a belief system? If it is, okay, then it is a superior one.

[rug]

12. Are you certain it's not?

[BurtWorm]

13. Repetez s'il vous plait.

Avec autres mots, et plus clairment. Merci!

[rug]

14. I undertand you clearly. Other words are unnecessary.

[BurtWorm]

15. Am I certain what is not?

Am I certain what is not what?

[JerseygirlCT]

42. Speaking for Rug

(and I apologize if I'm incorrect here, Rug), I assume he means "are you certain that God's request of us is unclear?"

[BurtWorm]

44. I don't believe there is a god to make a request.

However, I observe that there are many people who believe there is one and who claim to be certain that they know what it is. This would seem to suggest that there's a way to know what's in this alleged god's mind. If these people are not purely delusional--which is certainly a highly likely possibility--then some of them seem to truly believe they've received a clear message from the deity as to what it wants. (Are you one of those?) My question to them stands: if this deity really wants something, why doesn't it make it clear to the rest of us?

If you think the deity is being clear, tell me what it wants, or how you found out, please.

[rug]

46. Your post was premised on the existence of God.

I think it's clear people know what is right and what is wrong, whether they're believers or nonbelievers. Don't confuse that clarity with rituals and minutiae. Or the DSM.

[BurtWorm]

49. My question is to people who believe that a deity expects something of them

and their life-everlasting depends upon giving the deity what it wants.

Of course you don't have to be a theist to believe in the golden rule. But is that all you think most people who believe in an interested deity think the deity wants from them?

[rug]

54. Yeah, that's what it mostly comes down to.

[BurtWorm]

57. I doubt that's what it comes down to for most of the faithful.

I haven't seen evidence that that's what they practice, certainly.

[rug]

58. There are hypocrites, vengeful and petty people all over.

I daresay being an asshole overrides any religious creed or noncreed.

[JerseygirlCT]

47. I did

"love one another"

Difficult to do, but fairly clear as a request.

As far as knowing all that God thinks, that's not possible as I'm human. But tradition, scripture and my own thoughts lead me to "love one another".

[BurtWorm]

50. Clear from whom? It's one tiny part of your religion!

If that's all there is to it, what's the rest of it about?

[JerseygirlCT]

51. It's all of my religion

as Rabbi Hillel is said to have said, "all the rest is commentary"

[BurtWorm]

53. Then my question is not to you.

I don't consider you my "opponent."

[JerseygirlCT]

56. Nor I you! nt

[JerseygirlCT]

41. Do you find that sort of clarity in any relationship?

I think "love one another" is pretty clear. But we humans bring a lot of not so clear stuff to the relationship, IMO.

[BurtWorm]

45. 'Love one another' is an English phrase approximating the Biblical one, I presume.

So you believe the deity stuck this message in the middle of what became the Bible, amid all those stories of war and conquest and slavery and disobedience, etc., and contradiction and contradiction--and you think this is clarity of communication?

[JerseygirlCT]

48. I think God sent that message, in many different ways to

many different people, and that while God has been clear about the message, those hearing it have been more or less clear about recording it.

The bible is not God's dictation, as you seem to presume for this back and forth, but a record of humankind's relationship with God.

[BurtWorm]

52. Millions of faithful would beg to differ with you about that.

Millions would defend, with their lives and their children's lives, the idea that the Bible (or the Quran) is god's direct communication.

[JerseygirlCT]

55. I understand that

but I think that's a human problem of understanding, not a divine one of communicating.

[Meshuga]

62. I would call that "Growing Pains" dude and give him a banana

And then I will let him do the talking for me. I am sure all of you will change your minds.

[JerseygirlCT]

65. No! Don't bring out the Kirk Cameron!

Please, nothing's anyone's done here could possibly have deserved that!

[Meshuga]

66. He would be entertaining

But I am sure it would wear out pretty quickly and backfire. So all right, I will keep him away. :-)

[JerseygirlCT]

68. Phew. nt

[Nihil]

8. FWIW ...

... I'd give my "chance" to someone who is more interested in "making
an R/T opponent change his/her mind" - as long as they didn't use it
to proselytize me ...

I'm not interested in "converting" or "de-programming" anyone here
and would expect the same courtesy in turn.

I'm more than happy to talk about things (and, mainly, to listen to
others talking) but I hold the opinion that people should be allowed
to believe (or abstain from believing) anything they want to as long
as their resulting attitude does no physical or mental harm to another.

:shrug:

Yes, sometimes I respond to perceived slights/attacks/antagonism
in a less friendly way than usual and sometimes I poke people with
a stick (only verbally of course!) because I'm not perfect either
and so fail to live up to my ideals 100% of the time ... but I'm
working on it!

[BurtWorm]

9. Which side of the spectrum are you on, out of curiosity?

I'm guessing the rational/scientific side? If someone tells you that he is a creationist who plans to homeschool his children and indoctrinate them in creationism, is this ok with you? Or is that a harm that you would consider somewhat important to address?

If you think indoctrinating innocent children in creationist beliefs--in the belief that world is 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs were created by God at the same time humans were, that evolution is a myth, that science is an evil--is a harm, what I'm really asking is, what's your best shot to at least give this jerk--I mean, free American--pause long enough to consider that maybe he's causing his children harm?

Or do you think it's his business what he stuffs into the heads of his children?

[Nihil]

23. Mainly visible with some tactile infrared ...

(Well, my wife reckons I'm warm & cuddly even when she can't see me :-) )

> I'm guessing the rational/scientific side?

The short answer is your guess is ~75% right. I deleted the long and rambling
version before posting as it was largely irrelevent to your question.


> If someone tells you that he is a creationist who plans to homeschool his
> children and indoctrinate them in creationism, is this ok with you?
> Or is that a harm that you would consider somewhat important to address?
> Or do you think it's his business what he stuffs into the heads of his
> children?

Those are very good questions, ones that open up a whole crate of worm-cans ...

I find myself caught between conflicting responses.

(One is just to punt this as being different from the OP topic as we've now
moved from the "convincing another re their own beliefs" to "child-care of a
stranger's family" but let's have a go at it anyway ...)

I don't believe I have any "right" to interfere with the way that a parent
brings up their child as long as it doesn't harm them. On the other hand,
I believe that actively teaching them lies ("world is 6,000 years old", etc.)
can be harmful to them - thus overruling my initial reticence in the above.

There is nothing wrong with teaching the religious beliefs per se - I think
that it is often beneficial to provide a baseline, a reference point for the
future - but to teach fanatical adherence to dogma above all else *is* wrong.
There is a world of difference between "We believe that the world is 6,000
years old" and "The world is 6,000 years old and I'll beat you if you dare to
question it". (Even if you substitute "you'll burn for eternity" for "I'll
beat you" should you want to keep it free of physical violence).

Wilful ignorance *is* harm but it is also an extreme case of "the religious
point of view" (even though, sadly, it obviously exists today).

The main thing (to me) would be to point out that by indoctrinating children
with those specific points, he would be limiting the chances for those children
to succeed in their own lives as the only "career" that would accept that
level of "knowledge" would be as a preacher in the same particularly limited
sect to which he adheres.

If, however, he allowed the kids to learn about science - even if he added
"though this doesn't agree with the scriptures" or some other religion-specific
caveat - then the children would have a chance of growing up without a major
millstone around their necks when it comes to competing for higher education
places or jobs.


In short, I have no problem with the adult in your example holding his own
beliefs as, in themselves, they do not harm anyone or anything else and so
I wouldn't think of trying to "convert/de-program" him (as in the OP question).
When he uses his position of authority to enforce his personal belief on other
people (especially for say over 12s) then he is getting into the muddy morass
that surrounds "abuse" and, for that reason, I would start to have a problem.
My exact reaction to that problem would be guided by my specific feelings and
the specific circumstances at that time rather than a preset response to a
hypothetical set of conditions.

:shrug:

[BurtWorm]

37. My point in asking the questions was, really, to ask if you thought there were some issues

that warranted expressing your r/t opinions about. You might view this as an education or child welfare issue, but isn't it interesting, to say the least, that an r/t belief can become a child welfare issue?

I'm sure creationists who homeschool their children would be satisfied with the general view that parents have a right to indoctrinate their children however they feel appropriate. They may say that it's not just a right, but a duty to indoctrinate their children in these beliefs, but they don't care if other children are indoctrinated in materialism and naturalism, as long as THEIR kids aren't. From my perspective, and apparently from yours, however, children who are taught to believe the world is 6,000 years old when there is ample evidence that that is flatly incorrect are being subjected to a form of child abuse. To me, it's as if their parents had tied their innocent children's arms behind their backs before sending them out into the world to fend for themselves.

We don't have laws to protect children from intellectual abuse like this. We only have freedom of speech at our disposal--freedom to speak our minds and argue for what we believe is right. I think you agree with me that this is an instance where this freedom is also a responsibility.

[Nihil]

70. Agreed.

> I think you agree with me that this is an instance where this freedom
> is also a responsibility.

I think it is also interesting that the "freedom to speak our minds and
argue for what we believe is right" argument could also be used by the
literal creationist as justification for his actions ...

You definitely picked a fine can of worms this time! :hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

43. I'm with you

I'm happy if I see a chance to foster greater understanding and tolerance, but I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind.

[Withywindle]

73. +100

I'm not obsessed with changing anyone's mind either, at least when it comes to religion. Politics is a different matter. So is taste in music.

Religion, or the lack thereof is not and has never been a fact-based issue. By definition it can't be. Arguing the point is far more like arguing about taste in music or art or film; either you feel you can relate to a certain "art piece" or not (and all religions are human-created things based in our own particularly human sense of culture and aesthetics; the question of religions has nothing to do with whether God exists or not, because if it does, IT is not something we're going to be able to comprehend directly anyway).

I can spend weeks on end talking with friends about books and I want nothing more out of life than to be left alone for six months in a good library--and yet there are people who DON'T willingly read for pleasure and live on just fine without it. I can't fathom this lack-of-need, but I know it's true for them, and I know that non-readers can't grasp what an all-encompassing, more-interesting-than-the-concrete-world everything that books are to me. I pity them--as they probably pity me, this lone person who "wastes" so much time with my face stuck in a handful of paper thinking about people and places that don't exist. We don't work that hard on changing each others' minds. It's just not a productive use of time, especially since neither side is harming anyone.

[Nihil]

74. Some good points there.

> Religion, or the lack thereof is not and has never been a fact-based issue.

I also liked your books analogy (partly because I read a lot as well!).

:hi:

[Critters2]

10. I'd ask them to read the works of Rene Girard...

knowing full well they won't, because they're not open to having their minds changed. But if anyone could do it, it's Girard. he changed my mind.

[BurtWorm]

11. Would you be sharing that with atheists or with right-wing fundamentalists?

Most atheists probably wouldn't be persuaded by Girard. But maybe right-wing fundamentalists would.

[Critters2]

20. I'd be sharing it with both.

Why wouldn't atheists be persuaded? Girard was an agnostic when he began his work, and he was persuaded by what he found.

[BurtWorm]

21. I think most atheists would not be persuaded by what sounds like a teleological argument

Some might. Most probably wouldn't.

[trotsky]

27. That's quite the ignorant blanket statement.

"because they're not open to having their minds changed"

I changed my mind when I discarded religious belief, so #1 you're wrong. But #2, coming from someone who frequently complains about slights against believers by atheists, one would expect a little more than a bigoted statement like that.

[Silent3]

16. I'd give up. :)

I'm not a person to say that it's impossible to change someone else's mind about religious/spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof), but if we're talking about doing it with a one-time, single-shot argument, that is damn near impossible, especially if we're talking about simply laying down one basic argument with no back-and-forth to deal with all of the defensive mechanisms that come into play when you challenge someone's basic beliefs.

I think the most you can typically hope to do is plant seeds for further thought which may or may not have a cumulative effect over time, in combination with many thoughts and ideas a person encounters.

[BurtWorm]

19. Planting a seed should be good enough.

One would hope.

[geistvomeinzelganger]

31. Convincing Athiests

How old is this "opponent"? If they're to young to read I'd tell them about Christ and this planet's future concerning how it will be once everyone comes to understand and believe in the message and life of Christ. I would also tell them how this world will end if the people continue thinking and doing as the think and do now.

[BurtWorm]

34. Someone too young to read is an opponent?

Or an opportunity? ;-)

[darkstar3]

84. I'd like an answer to this question as well. n/t

[MorningGlow]

36. zOMG I wouldn't bother

People are going to believe what they want to believe (or, you know, not). The basic tenet of my faith is "An it harm none, do as thou wilt." I try to abide by that.

[BurtWorm]

38. This discussion might interest you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=220241&mesg_id=220384

[MorningGlow]

39. "An it harm none" is the operative phrase

:hi:

[BurtWorm]

40. I get that, and admire that philosophy.

Of course *an* is the key question, isn't it? ;-)

:hi:

[Meshuga]

67. I will say what I think about the subject being discussed.

We are all free to voice our opinion and/or knowledge on a particular subject.

If what I say happens to change someone's mind, that's great. But it is even more beneficial and worthwhile, in my opinion, when someone else shows me the light when I express my own misconceptions or when I am following the wrong path. I know, my post reads like a Chinese cookie but that's how I feel.

[JerseygirlCT]

69. I think that makes perfect sense! nt

[Evoman]

71. I'd probably ruin my chance by making a stupid joke.Probably something about ass pimples. Or penises

But who cares....that's how I roll, bitches.

[AuntPatsy]

72. Not take it...why do I need to change his or her mind? who cares if he or she is not hurting anyone?

[Zebedeo]

75. I would tell her about God's love for her

and how God wants her to freely choose to accept His gift and live eternally with Him in Heaven, and how this gift, once accepted, can change her life and make it have renewed meaning and purpose, and that she can experience true joy and contentment and really live life to its fullest once she makes this all-important decision.

[darkstar3]

76. And when she asks about the alternative? n/t

[Zebedeo]

78. I would tell her that

each of us has a choice, because God does not force any of us to choose Him. If He did, it wouldn't be a choice. Because God gave us the free will to choose or reject Him, some of us may unfortunately choose to reject Him. Those who do will choose to live for eternity in a place apart from God. Since God is all good things, those who choose to be separated from Him will have chosen to exist in the absense of all good things. They will live forever in a place without love, without joy, without happiness, without kindness - without everything that is good.

God does not want anyone to choose to be separated from Him. But He leaves the decision up to each of us, as individuals. Each of us has a lifetime to make our decision to accept God's gift of love or reject it.

[ZombieHorde]

80. "God does not want anyone to choose to be separated from Him"

If this were true, God would make God's presence known. Knowing God existed would not remove free will, God would be simply giving his children the proper information necessary to make an informed decision.

Since God is all good things

God = All good things
Education = a good thing
God = Education (amongst other good things)


If God abstains from giving us the education only God can offer, which is the knowledge God exists, then God is keeping God from our lives, which must be a good thing according to the definition of God as "all good things."

[Zebedeo]

87. He has.

"Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory." Isaiah 6:3

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" Psalm 19:1

All creation cries out to anyone with ears that God is magnificent and glorious. It is so everpresent that it is scarcely possible to ignore.

In addition to His creation, He gave us the Law on stone tablets. He gave us prophet after prophet after prophet. When we rejected the Law and the prophets, He came down and walked the Earth Himself in the incarnation of His Son, lived a perfect life, showed us how to live, and made the ultimate sacrifice upon the cross to pay for our sins. Then, for thousands more years, He has lived in the hearts of men and women the world round. In light of all this, it can hardly be credibly argued that God has failed to make His presence known.

What would be sufficient for you to conclude that He has made his presence known? Would He have to physically reveal Himself to you personally, and to each and every other person on the planet? Then would He have to continue to do that, as new people are born over the years and centuries and millenia? Do you think that is a reasonable expectation on your part?

[ZombieHorde]

89. All creation cries out to anyone with ears that God is magnificent and glorious.

Does this include malaria?

He gave us the Law on stone tablets.

Where are they? Can they be examined as evidence of God's existence?

He gave us prophet after prophet after prophet.

How do we know? Because a book says so?

He came down and walked the Earth Himself in the incarnation of His Son, lived a perfect life, showed us how to live

Again, how do we know this really happened?

and made the ultimate sacrifice upon the cross to pay for our sins

Why did God chose this method? Seems barbaric.

Then, for thousands more years, He has lived in the hearts of men and women the world round.

A lot of different deities live in the hearts of people, but do they live outside outside of the hearts of people? Thousands of people believe in Demeter, is this evidence Demeter is real? Bush is looked fondly upon by thousands, and is considered to be a good and great leader by thousands, does this mean Bush was a great man?

What would be sufficient for you to conclude that He has made his presence known?

There are many world wide events he could preform to help his children out. He could heal every amputee and then give us all the same dream informing us of his good work.

He could cure all diseases, feed the hungry, raise the dead, and give us a dream to tell us about it.

He could simply allow everyone into Heaven and not worry about being worshiped.

[darkstar3]

91. We think too much alike, apparently.

I just finished my post, and there was yours, right on top. Ah well...:hi:

[ZombieHorde]

103. Happens. I feel guilty when I am involved in a dog pile, but two posts does not make a dog pile. nt

[darkstar3]

90. Wow...

First off, when speaking to people for whom your holy book holds no weight, quoting from said holy book provides no proof, explanation, or substantiation.

'All creation cries out to anyone with ears that God is magnificent and glorious. It is so everpresent that it is scarcely possible to ignore.'
The condescension in this statement is astounding. You and your fellow believers have 'ears to hear.' Where did you get them, and why don't the rest of us have them? Could it be because God has somehow predestined certain people to hell? Or is it more likely that 'you find what you look for' as a believer?

'In addition to His creation, He gave us the Law on stone tablets.'
Find me any archaeological evidence that the original stone tablets of the Ten Commandments actually existed. Then prove they were carved by God and not man.

'He gave us prophet after prophet after prophet.'
Most of the prophets were in the Old Testament, and haven't been historically verified outside the bible itself.

'When we rejected the Law and the prophets, He came down and walked the Earth Himself in the incarnation of His Son, lived a perfect life, showed us how to live, and made the ultimate sacrifice upon the cross to pay for our sins.'
Again, unproven by any archaeological or anthropological data. Many scholars question the very existence of Jesus, or as he would have been known to the Hebrews, Yeshua.

'Then, for thousands more years, He has lived in the hearts of men and women the world round.'
Even if this were somehow verifiable, which Christians are you talking about? Catholics? Episcopalians? Presbyterians? Methodists? Baptists? Pentecostals? Apostolics?
The list goes on and on, and most of them believe that the others are not only wrong, but damned because of it. In which of these groups has 'he lived'?

'What would be sufficient for you to conclude that He has made his presence known?'
A Babel fish. :evilgrin: Failing that, since he is supposed to have dominion over all creation, he could at least play billiards with the stars at night so that we not only knew of his existence, but had some entertainment. Seriously, how can the creator, who has the power of WORD over EVERYTHING, be COMPLETELY uninvolved in today's universe. Not one physical law is broken, not one miracle to save an island of innocents from tsunamis...if he's so powerful, and so loving, where is he?

'Do you think that is a reasonable expectation on your part?'
Abso-fraggin-lutely. If he's gonna damn me to hell for all eternity because I don't love him, the least he could do is make a fucking phone call so I know he's alive!

[Zebedeo]

93. I thought you were seriously inquiring, darkstar3.

I can now see that your heart is hard and your mind is closed. I was once like you, so I can relate. Someday, you may look back on this conversation and say to yourself: "That Zebedeo guy was really speaking the truth, and I reacted with snark and condescension. I wish I could find that guy and thank him for what he tried to do for me." I hope for your sake that such a day comes to pass. Best wishes to you and yours.

- Zeb

[darkstar3]

94. Condescension?!?!

:rofl:
'I wish I could find that guy and thank him for what he tried to do for me.'
Methinks you doth project too much, sir. How highly must you think of yourself to make such a statement?
:wow:

Did you have any real answers to the questions I posed in all honesty?

[Zebedeo]

97. Sure, I have answers to your questions/comments

in all honesty. It seems like a waste of time, so I'll keep it short:

First off, when speaking to people for whom your holy book holds no weight, quoting from said holy book provides no proof, explanation, or substantiation.

You inquired about my beliefs as a Christian. I'm explaining Christianity to you. Naturally, I would quote from the Bible to demonstrate that what I am saying is not just my personal opinion, but is what the Bible actually says. You can reject the Bible if you want. God gave you that freedom.

'All creation cries out to anyone with ears that God is magnificent and glorious. It is so everpresent that it is scarcely possible to ignore.'
The condescension in this statement is astounding. You and your fellow believers have 'ears to hear.' Where did you get them, and why don't the rest of us have them? Could it be because God has somehow predestined certain people to hell? Or is it more likely that 'you find what you look for' as a believer?

I think just about everyone can observe the wonders of God's creation. If you choose to close your eyes and be oblivious, I guess you can ignore them, but if you are truly honest with yourself, you will be overwhelmed with the evidence of God's glory. Here's a quick example:

1. We observe that there is matter and energy in the universe - roughly 100 billion galaxies, each with 100 billion stars.

2. We know from astronomy and physics that the matter and energy in the universe came into existence a certain time ago and was not eternally present.

3. Through the law of conservation of matter/energy, we know that there is no natural way for the matter and energy to have come into existence from nothingness.

4. Since it came into existence, and there is no natural way for it to come into existence, its creation was therefore supernatural.

5. The supernatural force that caused the universe to come into existence is what we refer to as "God."

'In addition to His creation, He gave us the Law on stone tablets.'
Find me any archaeological evidence that the original stone tablets of the Ten Commandments actually existed. Then prove they were carved by God and not man.

So if there is no archeological evidence of something, then it didn't exist? Where's the archeological evidence for the invention of the wheel? You can't produce it? Then, by your own reasoning, the wheel has not been invented.

'He gave us prophet after prophet after prophet.'
Most of the prophets were in the Old Testament, and haven't been historically verified outside the bible itself.

Where would you expect the prophets to be verified? The Bible is the historical document from that period in the region of the world where the prophets lived.

'When we rejected the Law and the prophets, He came down and walked the Earth Himself in the incarnation of His Son, lived a perfect life, showed us how to live, and made the ultimate sacrifice upon the cross to pay for our sins.'
Again, unproven by any archaeological or anthropological data. Many scholars question the very existence of Jesus, or as he would have been known to the Hebrews, Yeshua.

Many scholars have an anti-religious agenda. There is more evidence for Jesus, and for his divinity, than for other historical figures from the ancient world who are routinely accepted by scholars as having been real. Read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.

'Then, for thousands more years, He has lived in the hearts of men and women the world round.'
Even if this were somehow verifiable, which Christians are you talking about? Catholics? Episcopalians? Presbyterians? Methodists? Baptists? Pentecostals? Apostolics?

All of the above.

The list goes on and on, and most of them believe that the others are not only wrong, but damned because of it. In which of these groups has 'he lived'?

Your assumptions are incorrect. He has lived in the hearts of members of all of these groups.

'What would be sufficient for you to conclude that He has made his presence known?'
A Babel fish. Failing that, since he is supposed to have dominion over all creation, he could at least play billiards with the stars at night so that we not only knew of his existence, but had some entertainment. Seriously, how can the creator, who has the power of WORD over EVERYTHING, be COMPLETELY uninvolved in today's universe. Not one physical law is broken, not one miracle to save an island of innocents from tsunamis...if he's so powerful, and so loving, where is he?

Playing billiards with the stars would be destructive and pointless. God's purpose is not to amuse you. He is not uninvolved in today's universe. Since you acknowledge the existence of physical laws, who do you think promulgated them? Or did they come into existence all by themselves spontaneously without a cause? Got any "archeological evidence" for that?

'Do you think that is a reasonable expectation on your part?'
Abso-fraggin-lutely. If he's gonna damn me to hell for all eternity because I don't love him, the least he could do is make a fucking phone call so I know he's alive!

Rather presumptuous of you to expect the Creator of the universe to be literally at your beck and call. No, I think He has it pretty well covered without making a personal phone call to you and billions of others every day. Besides, even if He did call you up on the phone, I feel pretty confident that you still wouldn't believe. To believe, you have to make a conscious choice to soften your heart and open your mind and let the Holy Spirit indwell you. Until that happens, there is no hope.

[iris27]

99. What is simpler? The idea that energy is eternal,

or that an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God who has revealed himself through the Bible and requires your acceptance and in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit in order to not spend eternity in the utter absence of anything that is good...existed to create energy and is himself necessarily eternal?

"3. Through the law of conservation of matter/energy, we know that there is no natural way for the matter and energy to have come into existence from nothingness."

[Zebedeo]

101. We know from observation that your hypothesis is false

Matter and energy came into being in the Big Bang. They did not exist eternally. Therefore, the God as Creator hypothesis is the more likely.

[darkstar3]

102. Buzz! wrong.

No one 'observed' the big bang.
And perhaps you've never heard of the Cyclic Universe Theory?

[Zebedeo]

106. Fail.

We can observe the evidence for the Creation event, or as it is often called, the "Big Bang."

Moreover, the "cyclic universe theory" to which you are forced to resort is unsupported by any evidence, and is in fact contrary to the observable evidence. The expansion of the universe is not slowing down, and preparing for an eventual "Big Crunch." Just the opposite is true. The expansion of the universe is speeding up.

[darkstar3]

109. Please provide evidence of these observations you or others have made.

You say that the cyclic theory is unsupported by evidence, even though astronomers and astrophysicists have calculated that the expansion speed has slowed over many millennia, but your counter-argument of 'observation' has no substantiation. Please provide links so that we can find out exactly what has been observed and how.

[Zebedeo]

113. Google is your friend

google "expansion of universe speeding up."

[darkstar3]

118. Google is YOUR friend as well,

but since you seem unable or unwilling to use it, allow me to post something for you to ponder.

In 1998, in a paper entitled "Accelerating Universe from the Observation of Supernovae" (S. Perlmutter et al. astroph/9812133), cosmologists posited that the universe was actually accelerating in its expansion contrary to popular belief. They based this theory on the measurements of the furthest visible supernovae in our universe. By their measurements, and taking into account time lag due to the finite speed of light, these cosmologists found that the brightness of these supernovae could only be explained if they were accelerating on their journey away from us rather than decelerating as scientists had always believed. This paper was a huge hit in the fields of astronomy and cosmology, and led to the theory of "dark energy" as well as other very interesting ideas.

The problem is, the cosmologists in 1998 didn't know about the inconsistency of the Hubble constant (at the time, it was believed to actually BE constant), which hasn't yet been fully mapped. They also didn't take into account the internal light dynamics of the supernovae themselves, but rather assumed that the brightness decay of the supernovae was constant just as regular stars are.

Enter the Chandra Observatory in 2008.

Further research from this observatory, which accounts for inconsistencies in the Hubble constant and focuses on the more dependable red shift instead of supernovae, shows clearly that the universe is in fact decelerating. This more reliable data is also much easier to explain, since it fits perfectly with gravitational models and requires no new "dark energy" definition that can't possibly be measured or proven. You can read more about this in PDF form here.

And so we see that the Cyclic Universe Theory is in fact possible.

But what does that have to do with God? As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, this universe DID exist BEFORE The Big Bang, but it existed in a compressed state very different than anything we see now. The concepts of space and time may have began with The Big Bang, but the energy that is contained in this universe, some of which has been converted to matter, existed long before it.

And I must join other DUers in asking: Which is simpler? Pure, formless energy that can neither be created nor destroyed and is therefore eternal, or a being with powers defying even our greatest imaginations that breathed the universe as we know it into existence?

[iris27]

105. Uh, no, energy/matter already existed before the Big Bang.

The BB hypothesis simply describes expansion, not creation. It says that all the matter in our cosmos today existed in a hot, dense state only a few millimeters across, and roughly 14 billion years ago, expanded into the vast and much cooler universe we know today. The background microwave radiation present throughout all of space is considered to be a remnant of the initial heat of that teeny dense speck of universe.

"Matter and energy came into being in the Big Bang. They did not exist eternally."

This is false simply by the law of conservation of energy. Energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, only converted between states. Ergo, energy is eternal. And again, what's simpler to believe? Eternal energy? Or that an infinitely complex deity figure must have existed first in order to create that energy?

[Nihil]

108. “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.”

Sorry Iris, I couldn't resist it!
:evilgrin:

I think that is one of my all-time favourite quotes from Terry Pratchett.

Another one that is appropriate to the R/T forum is:
“Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”

(More at http://terrypratchett.org/more.html)

[iris27]

112. Terry Prachett is awesome. :)

I am rather partial to this one...

"God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of his own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time."

[BurtWorm]

110. Isn't it astonishing

how difficult it is for people to get their minds around the idea of eternal *something*? Somehow it makes more sense to the vast majority of humans that there must have been :nothing: before there was :something,: that the :something: had to have come from "something entirely else." This is probably just because before "me" there was no me. We are biased toward believing all things must begin and end. It doesn't compute that maybe somethings in this universe always are, always have been, and always will be.

[Zebedeo]

114. That's God

He was, He is and He is to come. The alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. He has always existed, exists now and always will exist.

As for the physical universe we inhabit -- not so much.

[BurtWorm]

115. And he's male?

[darkstar3]

117. Nice creed statement there

now prove any part of it.

[Nihil]

121. Interesting ...

> That's God
> He was, He is and He is to come. The alpha and the omega, the beginning
> and the end. He has always existed, exists now and always will exist.

If you substitute "All That Is" (or any other synonymous phrase for
"The Universe") for "He" then you two have effectively agreed ... all
that is different between your is/was/will/Alpha/Omega paragraph and
the preceding discussion about a cyclic universe is the term used as
the keyword.

:think:

I am not someone who argues over the "rightness" of any particular name
that different peoples use to refer to G-d so maybe that frees me up
from the religious dispute between "The Universe" vs "Creation" ...
I still appreciate the beauty of it from the galactic to the microscopic.

:shrug:

[darkstar3]

122. That substitution doesn't work

for a lot of Christians (I used to be one of them), and it won't work for Zeb either. He's talking about a personal and involved creator entity, which exists outside of our normal space and time. Zeb's God is not The Universe itself, Zeb's God created and runs The Universe, and still exists outside of it.

[Nihil]

123. I agree but at that point, their words came close - hence the "if" in my original comment.

I just found it interesting that, on one level, the two POVs were
remarkably close and it was the "back-story" that actually made
them poles apart rather than trivially (word choice) different.

:shrug:

(Just wool-gathering while waiting for a backup job to finish.)

[Jim__]

132. Yes. I've noticed that when beer talk turns to religion ...

... when "they" talk about God, they don't know what they're talking about. And, when I talk about "the universe", I don't know what I'm talking about.

[rd_kent]

131. Zeb, you are delusional.

[Zebedeo]

137. Not delusional; Christian.

I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty. Rev. 1:8

Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come." Rev. 4:8

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" John 8:58

God is eternal. The physical universe is not. It had a beginning (which we can determine through observation), and it will have an end.

[darkstar3]

138. Looks like you should read #90 again.

And don't forget the subthread, either, because you're repeating yourself here.

[rd_kent]

141. Same thing, my Friend, same thing.

Those two words are entirely interchangeable.

[darkstar3]

100. ...

'If you choose to close your eyes and be oblivious, I guess you can ignore them, but if you are truly honest with yourself, you will be overwhelmed with the evidence of God's glory.'
Again you condescend to me as if you are somehow more enlightened because you believe in something for which there is no evidence.

'1. We observe that there is matter and energy in the universe...{big snip}
5. The supernatural force that caused the universe to come into existence is what we refer to as "God."'
I once attempted to use the laws of thermodynamics to prove the existence of God. I was shown the error of my ways by theoretical physicists whose intelligence far outweighs my own. While I can't begin to recreate their explanations in a message board friendly format, I will say that the laws of thermodynamics are more proof for the NON-existence of God than for his existence. You'll need a theoretical physicist to explain this further.

'So if there is no archeological evidence of something, then it didn't exist? Where's the archeological evidence for the invention of the wheel? You can't produce it? Then, by your own reasoning, the wheel has not been invented.'
Never have I been confronted with a better example of 'apples vs. oranges'. You cannot compare the origination of IDEAS, such as laws, with the origination of physical creations, such as wheels. I can point to a wheel on the car outside my window, therefore it was created. Further, there are actual wheels and imprints of wheels found in the ground from many prior civilizations all over the world. How do you archaeologically prove the existence of an idea?

At any rate, though, the EXISTENCE of law wasn't what I asked about. I asked about the ORIGINATION. You said that God gave us the law on stone tablets. How can you prove that the Ten Commandments talked about in the Bible even existed, let alone were created by God?

'The Bible is the historical document from that period in the region of the world where the prophets lived.'
If the Bible is a historical document, why can't we verify most of the things or people mentioned in it through other records from the same times? Archaeologists and anthropologists have been trying...

'Many scholars have an anti-religious agenda.'
Dismissal by ad hom, how original.

'There is more evidence for Jesus, and for his divinity, than for other historical figures from the ancient world who are routinely accepted by scholars as having been real'
Name three historical figures routinely accepted by scholars for whom there is less proof than Jesus.

'Your assumptions are incorrect.'
What assumption? I stated clearly that many Christian denominations believe that other denominations are wrong and going to hell. If Jesus lived in the hearts of ALL of these people, why would they hold such contempt for their brothers?

'He is not uninvolved in today's universe. Since you acknowledge the existence of physical laws, who do you think promulgated them? Or did they come into existence all by themselves spontaneously without a cause? Got any "archeological evidence" for that?'
I can't prove or even suppose how the universe or physical laws came into existence. How in the name of sir Isaac H. Newton does that mean there is a God? What you're doing here is using something called 'The God of the gap,' and it is an old and tired argument.

'Rather presumptuous of you to expect the Creator of the universe to be literally at your beck and call.'
Presumptuous? If I use the capacities of logic, reason, and science, supposedly given to me by God, to better understand the nature of his existence, and by proxy my own, only to find that there is no evidence for his existence, that makes me presumptuous? :eyes: Again you dismiss an argument via ad hom...

'To believe, you have to make a conscious choice'
That's the first truly correct thing you've said so far, but I contend that the conscious choice also requires that you close your eyes to the incredible lack of evidence of God's existence. Some call this faith. At the risk of offending a whole lot of people (and I apologize 'cause I can't think of a better way to word this), I call this wishful thinking.

[rd_kent]

130. Asking for proof is a closed mind? I think you need to seek help for YOUR closed mind.

[damyank913]

135. Right on !!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would he give us senses and then ask us not to trust them (or use them) to ascertain his existence? A display of power is what's needed. And not the usual tsunami or earthquake. I have a small one-grow my friend's leg back. Cause man, he really needs it...

[darkstar3]

92. Additional:

'and made the ultimate sacrifice upon the cross to pay for our sins.'

"For I so loved the world, that I lowered myself to human form, so that I could sacrifice myself to myself, in order to appease my anger at the folly of my own creation."

[rd_kent]

129. Ah, so the book of fairly tales that is not only inconsistent but conflicting and, on most accounts,

just plain wrong, is the proof?

What a load of shit.

[rd_kent]

142. Cuckoo, cuckoo!

[darkstar3]

82. So for failing to believe in God,

due to the incredible absence of evidence, or possibly even failing to HEAR about God, we are to be condemned to a place with no good things for eternity?

That's not love, that's sadistic narcissism of the highest order.

[BurtWorm]

77. And she would probably ask you, "How do you know what God wants? Does he tell you this?"

[Zebedeo]

79. It is written on our hearts

A person knows when he is doing something that is against God's will. When we do something wrong, we feel guilt and shame in our hearts. When we do something good, we feel good about it.

[BurtWorm]

81. Is shame always a sign of God's disapproval of our actions?

Some might say it's often a sign of a stern parent's disapproval internalized. For example, a person may find their sexual orientation shameful. Is it really? Is God expressing disapproval of that person's orientation? Why then do others with the same orientation not only feel no shame but pride? Is God approving their orientation? Why would he approve one and not the other?

[Zebedeo]

86. No, sometimes shame has other sources. n/t

n/t

[BurtWorm]

96. How can you tell the diffference between God-shame and other shame?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

125. 3 1/2 months and no answer.

Heh.

[darkstar3]

83. What of murderers?

rapists?
thieves?
violent sociopaths of other types?

These people commit heinous acts against other humans, and yet feel no shame or remorse. Why is that?

[Zebedeo]

85. They certainly know that what they do is wrong

That's what I am talking about. The fact that they do it anyway is the result of their rebellion against God's will. Everybody knows good and well that murder, rape and theft are wrong. Even if they feel no remorse, they know that what they are doing is wrong.

[darkstar3]

88. Tell that to Bundy, Gacy, and Dahmer

as well as others. Have you ever studied the psychology of the truly criminal? Some do it because they like it, others do it because they feel that they are called to do so. Trust me when I tell you that not ALL murderers, rapists, and thieves see what they do as wrong.

The line "The Law of God is written on the hearts of men" is a way to turn the social morality that most "normal" humans possess into something religious. But that doesn't make it true. Some humans are genetically mutated to have six toes, while others are genetically mutated to have VERY weird brains.

Biology and natural selection are just damn weird, aren't they?

[Zebedeo]

107. If a person does not know that his criminal conduct is wrong

he is not guilty by reason of insanity. Google the "M'Naughton rule."

Bundy, Gacy and Dahmer were not insane. They were all found guilty. Therefore, they were found to know that their conduct was wrong.

In the cases of Gacy and Dahmer, the insanity defense was specifically raised, and rejected. In the case of Bundy, the insanity defense was not even attempted (AFAIK).

So, you are quite mistaken. The murderers you listed all knew that their conduct was wrong.

[darkstar3]

111. See post #95

and try again.

ETA: Establishing criminal culpability and talking about 'feeling' that something is wrong are two ENTIRELY different things. Why do you jump around so much?

[iris27]

95. They only "know" it's wrong because society has taught them that it's wrong,

and even so, they don't care. It's not rebellion against God's will, it's just doing what they want because they have no conscience causing them guilt. My sister is a sociopath, and she "understands" that society frowns upon certain activities because our parents taught us right from wrong, and because when she is caught, she suffers societally-imposed consequences. But she has no internal compass to follow or rebel against in matters of right and wrong. She does whatever she wants, whether or not it is legal, whether or not it is moral, simply because it is her desire.

[ZombieHorde]

104. I think most murderers, rapists, and thieves know those activities are illegal,

but I don't think they all "know that what they do is wrong."

I shoplifted when I was a kid, I did not feel what I was doing was wrong or unethical, but I did know stealing was illegal.

[rd_kent]

128. How do YOU know what god wants? Did he tell you directly?

[DeSwiss]

98. I have no R/T opponent(s).....

...that's what the "Ignore Button" is for.

But in answer to you underlying question, there is nothing I, nor anyone else could ever say that would change a person's mind. If that person did abandon their previous ideas about life and religion's place within it to my own views, then they'd simply be adopting my POV. So they're not changing their mind with their own new ideas, but supplanting their ideas with mine. People can and do influece the direction or perspective of others. That can be helpful. But everyone must discover life and it's meaning for themselves. They can't use other's revelations in place of achieving their own. That's why we're here.

- And it's the only way it works.....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

116. Religious faith is experiential not a matter of argumentation

I can correct people's misconceptions about religion, but I can't make them religious. Religion isn't about believing a set of statements. It's an experience of the Ultimate and a way of life.

[GliderGuider]

119. Speaking as a "mystical atheist"

I don't think I can change someone else's mind, so I have no interest in trying. If a mind is going to change, it's the owner's job to change it, not mine. As the hot-dog vendor said as he pocketed the Dalai Lama's $20 bill for a $2 hot-dog, "Change must come from within." My approach is to listen deeply to the others' points of view, express my own position as truthfully as I can, and let the world continue revolving.

I spent a lot of time trying to change peoples' minds on the Internet before I woke up and realized why my forehead hurt so much. :banghead:

[MikeH]

120. Like others here, I do not feel any need to make someone else change his/her mind

I might say what I think about a particular topic or matter, and if what I say influences someone else to do some thinking, great. If not, no problem.

Incidentally that is one of the nice things about not being a Christian, particularly not being a fundamentalist Christian like Zebedeo. A fundamentalist Christian has on his or her mind the thought that other people are going to go to hell for all eternity if they happen to not "accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior" in this lifetime. I just don't see how anybody can get any of the normal joy or enjoyment out of life, or relate normally and naturally with other people, if they really think that.

I would consider myself to be a Deist, and just on the believing side of agnostic. I feel that there are reasons that believing in some reality or intelligence higher or greater than ourselves is not absurd or ridiculous. However I am not so positive about the reality of God that I feel I need to be bothered if other people feel that their reasoning leads them to believe in no God, and are happy about not believing.

Deists do not accept any alleged revelation from God as actually being such, and I am with them about that. I think that there are serious problems with considering either the Bible, or the Koran, for instance, as being actual revelations from God.

However if somebody else does adhere to one of the "revealed" religions, such as Islam or Christianity, and the person is happy with his or her particular faith, then I respect that person's faith -- as long as the person does not tell me that I am going to go to hell if I do not accept his or her faith, or otherwise say that his or her faith is right and anything else is wrong, and does not feel that it is his or her business to impose rules or laws on the rest of society based on his or her particular religious beliefs (such as Proposition 8). I feel very strongly about http://www.au.org/">separation of church and state, for instance.

[Desertrose]

124. Don't think of others with different opinions as "opponents"...

and like others here, not up to me to get someone else to "change their mind".

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

126. I'd say "screw it" and use the statement for something productive.

Like, say, cheer up a kid by saying his paintings are beautiful.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

133. dupe

dupe-dee-dupe

[MineralMan]

136. Switch to another forum. That would be my best option.

Why should I try to change anyone's mind about something as nebulous as religion? Waste of time, IMO.

[Dorian Gray]

139. I don't think I would

the discussion can be interesting at times. I don't want people to change their minds, though I'd love people to treat each other with respect.

I find that varying beliefs make the world a more interesting place to live.