This is a question for the Christians. It seems obvious that part of why many people are Christian (or any religion) is where they were born. An atheist would say that you're only a Christian because you were born in a part of the world with a lot of Christians in it. If you had been born elsewhere, you might be Muslim, or Hindu, etc. You believe that your religion is the correct religion, though, and your god the real god. So you must feel lucky that you weren't born elsewhere, where you might have had a much harder time finding out about Jesus. Is this something you ever think about? If so, how do you explain your good fortune?

Haha, good question. I've thought about it a little... and I have no answer. I think you're right, actually. Almost everyone ends up being exactly what their parents are/were. That's why, whether it's idealistic or childish or whatever, I can't say that I think that a Muslim doesn't have the same chances I have to get to heaven. I bet that's not what my church teaches, and I have no idea whether it's right or not. It's just a thought I've had.

Had a discusson on this many years ago at a college BSU meeting. Don't remember for sure, but i think the conclusion was that god has a plan, or works in mysterious ways, or something of that nature.

*Edit: that's Baptist Student Union for those of you raised heathen.

Chels,

Don't you think that if Jesus isn't the only way into heaven, he doesn't really matter much?

Xalicelikewhoa,

That's an attitude I wish more people had, but then I guess the question doesn't really apply to you. Many Christians believe that Jesus is the way to heaven. I hope some of them join in this discussion.

Ha ha! You have to be a Bible literalist or you're cultish? Isn't it the Bible literalists who are cultish?

That's sort of insulting. Try not to put others down for their beliefs and actually have a good debate.

I think that God chooses who gets to be saved and who doesn't. That might sound biased, but God has a different purpose for every single person.

Alice,

"...I dont think that there is a wrong religion..."

How can every religion be correct when they each make claims that flatly contradict all of the others? For instance, Islam plainly states that Jesus was a prophet, and that believing that he was god will earn you a ticket to hell. The Christian claim is, of course, exactly the opposite. At least one of them must be incorrect. Clearly there are wrong religions. And once you start using reason to whittle away at the parts of religion that contradict the other religions, and the parts of religion that contradict science, and the parts of religion that contradict modern ethics, what's left of the original belief system?

Snoopy,

"Try not to put others down for their beliefs..."

Why not? Some beliefs are stupid, some beliefs are evil, some beliefs are both. Why does any belief deserve exemption from criticism?

If you're going to argue that there's a difference between criticizing a person and criticizing her beliefs, I'd say that that depends on the circumstances. With theists it's usually impossible to criticize their beliefs without being accused of criticizing them personally; this in itself is an annoying feature of theism.

"I think that God chooses who gets to be saved and who doesn't."

And how is this not monstrously evil?

That's sort of insulting. Try not to put others down for their beliefs and actually have a good debate.

You need thicker skin snoopy. If you can't defend why your beliefs aren't stupid, you deserve them to be called stupid.

I am a new member and I have to chime in on this discussion : I agree with the person above who said there are no wrong religions , but I also don't take it quite that far. After all, in it's strictest, sense Satanism in a religion. I believe that the relationship you have with God is strictly that and if you are sincere and devout in your beliefs and strive to better yourself then you are headed in the right direction. After all God did not create religion. I sincerely believe that there will be as many devout, faithful Hindus, Muslims, Christians Native Americans and Babtist and Episcopalians ETC in heaven. It's not what you believe, it's how you act on what you believe that is important.

ScottK,

Then are atheists okay too? We don't believe in God at all, but most of us try to be good people. Just trying to get your thoughts.

Scott,

So you agree except when you disagree. That certainly clarifies things.

And what exactly is wrong with worshipping Satan? If "everyone worships the same god" then surely it makes no difference whether one calls that god Jesus or Satan, no? Satan worshippers are people too, are they not?

Nathan; It depends, I have met different types of atheists. Ones who strictly deny the exsistance of God or any other higher power, and another group who denies an exsistance of God but admits to some form of power or guide what have you. If you are one of the former then it really shouldn't matter because you also believe that once the last breath leaves your body you cease to exsist. The latter group I totally believe will be accepted in Heaven as long as they are devout and sincere in their belief of some "source".

Rick; I never said Satan was God. In fact I do not beleive he is. Biblically he is an angel who defied God by trying to be "like him". I might try to be like Josh Groban but since I can not sing half as well I know I will never BE him. That would mean if you worship Satan you really aren't worshiping a God at all but an angel who fell short of being a God.

I should perhaps also clarify my stance a bit, I am in NO WAY a Bible Thumper, although I was headed down that road. I abhor organized religion as such, but I do not discount that a relationship can be had with god w/o the hatred and hypocracy that spews forth from most radical fundamentalists.

Being a Gay man my eyes were opened very quickly to all the hatred from MOST organized religions. I actually went to Bible college Naively believing that "If" I was unpleasing to God he would take away what made me unpleasing. Long story short, it took me those 4 years to realize that it was not God so much that I was displeasing to, but fundamentalists religious leaders whose flocks follow blindly behind them and digest his words as their only Mana. So now I have a Bachelor's degree in Theology AND a Husband whom I love completely and who loves me in return !

If you are one of the former then it really shouldn't matter because you also believe that once the last breath leaves your body you cease to exsist. The latter group I totally believe will be accepted in Heaven as long as they are devout and sincere in their belief of some "source".

It really doesn't matter to me, because I am quite sure when I die, there will be nothing to follow afterward. However, I am asking your stance on it. What do you think happens to people like me who don't believe in any "higher power"?

Scott,

Is it your belief then, that if someone doesn't believe in a higher power, then that higher power will punish him for his disbelief by destroying his (supposedly immortal) soul? If so this raises two questions: What is your evidence for this belief? And why is your god so spiteful?

"Biblically he is an angel who defied God by trying to be "like him"."

That idea doesn't come from the Bible, it come from Milton's Paradise Lost. Besides which, the Satan that appears in the New Testament is rather different than the one that appears in the Old Testament, and neither is necessarily the one worshipped by Satanists.

"...if you worship Satan you really aren't worshiping a God at all..."

Whatever Satan may or may not be, if he exists then he's certainly a higher power of some kind, and you just said that any belief in a higher power would impress god sufficiently to get the believer into heaven.

Also, when you refer to someone who "denies an exsistance of God but admits to some form of power" |sic| are you talking about deism?

Rick ;There is no verse or passage in the Bible that says, “Lucifer is Satan,” but an examination of several passages reveals that Lucifer can be none other than Satan. The fall of Lucifer described in Isaiah 14:12 is likely the same that Jesus referred to in Luke 10:18: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” A similar fall is depicted in Ezekiel 28.

Isaiah 14:12-18 describes the fall from heaven of one called “Lucifer” in the King James Version and the “morning star, son of the dawn” in the NIV. Other Bible versions call him “Day Star,” “shining star,” and “the bright morning star.” These variations are due to differences of opinion about how to translate the Hebrew word helel. Regardless, the description of the one referred to shows us it can be none other than Satan. We know from Jesus’ own words in Luke 10 that Satan fell from heaven. So, when Isaiah refers to Lucifer or helel being cast down to earth (Isaiah 14:12), it can be none other than Satan. The reason for his fall is found in verses 13 and 14: “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’” This has always been Satan’s desire – to be God, and it is the very temptation he used in the Garden of Eden to get Eve to disobey God: “You shall be as God” (Genesis 3:5).

Ezekiel 28 is another passage thought to refer to Lucifer/Satan. Although it begins with Ezekiel being commanded by God to “take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre” (v. 12), an evil idolatrous king, it soon becomes clear that the passage is referring as well to the power behind that king—Satan. Verse 13 says he was “in Eden, the garden of God.” Clearly, the king of Tyre was never in Eden. Verse 14 says, “You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you.” Apparently, Lucifer/Satan had a position of guardian angel in heaven “among the fiery stones,” thought to be the shining precious jewels that are seen in other descriptions of heaven (Exodus 24:10; Revelation 21:18-21). Since the king of Tyre was never in heaven, either, this can only be describing Lucifer. The rest of the passage describes the reason he was cast out of heaven. Because of his beauty, his heart became proud and his wisdom was corrupted (v. 17). Pride in his perfection, wisdom and beauty (v. 12) became the source of his downfall, and God threw him to the earth (v. 17). This was witnessed by the Lord Jesus in heaven before His incarnation (Luke 10:18).

To summarize, the Hebrew word helel is translated "Lucifer." He was cast out of heaven for his sin of pride and his desire to be God. Jesus referred to seeing Satan being cast out of heaven. Therefore, we can conclude that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same.

The above is found gotanswers.com

Nathan; I haven't really thought that much about it. It has not been a concern, That being said I can say that if the whole deal is based on sincere and devout belief then I wholeheartedly hope you get the oblivion you believe awaits you.

That being said I can say that if the whole deal is based on sincere and devout belief then I wholeheartedly hope you get the oblivion you believe awaits you.

We all get oblivion-----no matter what we believe.

Wow... you have no idea what a debate is at all. I can say your beliefs are stupid. That they are completely pointless and make no sense. I know what you're going to say next: "You're the one with beliefs that are completely pointless and make no sense." Whatever. This whole "debate" thing is pointless if you can't even express your opinion without getting attacked. "We try to be good people" yeah right. If you put other people down to lift yourself up then you are not a "good person" at all.

Snoopy are you directing that at me ?

She is directing it at me, yet she has no idea what she is talking about.

Snoopy,

I never called your beliefs stupid. I said, and still maintain, that if someone cannot support his beliefs, that person deserves his beliefs to be called stupid. Yet I never said your beliefs in particular are stupid.

Try making a point that you want to debate. Then I will debate you.

And get some thicker skin....you are acting like a baby.

It looks like this thread has failed to attract any people who believe that Jesus is the way to heaven, but it's raised another interesting question. A few people have said things along these lines:

I believe that all people that have lived an honest and good life will go to heaven.

If you sincerely believe this, then why bother practicing Christianity or any particular faith? If honesty and goodness are the only prerequisites for heaven, then why waste time going to church and reading the bible? You must think that practicing Christianity confers some sort of advantage. If that is the case, it brings us back to the original question: how do you account for your good fortune for being born in a part of the world that predisposed you to practicing, if not the one correct faith, then at least an advantageous faith?

Alice,

"What right does any individual person have to say that a religion is wrong?"

That would be the right of freedom of speech, which in the United States is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Fortunately for rational discourse (and science and democracy), there is no right to be free from criticism, nor from personal offense.

"I find it interesting that the only people that ever want to "debate religion" are atheists/agnostics and Christians..."

What's your point here?

Scott,

"There is no verse or passage in the Bible that says, “Lucifer is Satan,”...

Indeed. And equating Eve's serpent with Job's Satan and the NT's Lucifer is a silly retcon. However, I'm not going to debate this point further for several reasons. First, all you did was copy-and-paste, from an unreliable source, no less; you didn't bother with thinking. Second, the issue is irrelevant to the thread and irrelevant to my posts. Third, there's no evidence that Jesus ever existed, let alone demons and angels and talking snakes; arguing about these fantasy creatures is a waste of time.

Xalicelikewhoa,

But, for a person to say a religion is wrong would mean that this person would have to know everything.

It is not we who must explain why a religion is wrong. The person making the extraordinary claim must explain why it is right. The burden of proof falls on the religious people who make wild claims thaqt can't possibly be true.

I really hate when people pass the burden of proof to the atheists who are not the ones making crazy claims.

What right do people have to assume that their opinion on right vs. wrong is the correct one, that all people should follow?

This is exactly what religion attempts to do. It tells people this way is right and every other way is wrong. Do you not see this?

people should respect all religions because everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions and love is the answer!

Two things. First, I do not respect religions because they do not deserve respect. I respect claims that have evidence. No religious claims have evidence to support them, so they are baseless. Baseless claims do not deserve respect.

Second, you are telling people what to believe when you say "love is the answer!" You are doing so just as much as someone else who thinks that his belief is the way to enlightenment.

Alice,

"But, for a person to say a religion is wrong would mean that this person would have to know everything."

I think perhaps you're making the wrong argument here. It's true that we can't prove that God doesn't exist, because that would require us to, loosely speaking, "know everything." However, proving that a particular belief system is wrong doesn't necessarily require the same knowledge base. If the veracity of a belief system hangs upon truth claims then disproving those claims suffices to disprove the system. We can also disprove a belief system by pointing out contradictions internal to that system, or by demonstrating that that system is in contradiction with what we know to be true about reality.

"They would have to be able to explain the deep spiritual beliefs and connections people have to their faith which is really impossible..."

That's not impossible at all. I recommend you read The God Delusion for a good introduction to the subject of natural explanations for people's subjective experiences of religion.

"Can anyone possibly decide what is wrong and what is right?"

Yes. We do it all the time, individually and as a society. Most of the time the decision is simple and obvious; sometimes it's subtle and difficult. That's why we have systems of justice and philosophies of ethics and conversations like this one; to work out those problems.

"Wouldn't that be like trying to play God?"

No, struggling with the concepts of right and wrong is very much a part of being human.

"What Im saying is, people should respect all religions because everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions and love is the answer!"

There's a difference between respecting a person's right to his beliefs, and respecting the beliefs themselves. We should respect peoples' rights to believe whatever they want, but we also need to have the freedom to point out when those beliefs are incorrect, or stupid, or evil. The fact that a belief is labelled as "religious" should not entitle that belief to any special exemption. For one thing, it isn't always clear when a belief system is a religion or not. For another thing, labeling a belief "religious" does not guarantee that that belief won't be incorrect, or stupid, or evil.

"...we shouldn't be fighting over religion..."

Well you certainly came to the right group then. :)

Hm. Looks like Alice deleted all of her posts and quit the group.

What the hell is it with these people?

Rick,

These people are idiots who can never back up what they say with anything remotely rational.

I do, however, wonder why they feel a need to delete their posts. Perhaps they realize what they said was stupid and indefensible.

That's a start at least.

To the people who have said that no religion is the right religion and all good people will get into heaven (if there are any left in this group), doesn't the idea of there even being a heaven, and of there being one god, naturally exclude certain religions? It's easy to claim humility by saying that your religion is just your personal version of a universal spiritual journey that other people undertake in different ways, but that seems to me like a cop out. You're still claiming that there's a heaven and a single god who lives there who grants or denies salvation. This belief, while not necessarily dependent on your specific religion, is still dependent on your good fortune at having been born where you were born. It still doesn't resolve the original question. It's little more than a smokescreen.

Nathan,

It's sad.

"Perhaps they realize what they said was stupid and indefensible. That's a start at least."

I'd like to believe that that's the case but I have a feeling they're more like angry children packing up their toys and storming out. And right before Christmas too!

Now I have a question for Athiests. I was just wondering, do you think humans have souls? When people die, Christians believe in some kind of heaven/hell, but Athiests believe in... non existence? If you don't believe in spirits or souls, than what the hell are ghosts?
I was just a little confused on the finer points, hoping you could clear that up for me.
Thanks.

Chels said:

"If you don't believe in spirits or souls, than what the hell are ghosts?"

I was actually going to reply until you asked this question. Your confusion is evidently much deeper than the "finer points"

Please restate, without demanding the conclusion is proved before the assumptions.

Is my question confusing to you? Why won't you answer me? I was trying to state the question so that I wouldn't get attacked. What assumptions did I make?

What assumptions did I make?

That ghosts exist.

Chel,

You assumed ghosts exist. That was the problem to which R.C. was refering.

The things is, ghosts aren't real. So when you ask "what are ghosts?" my only answer is that they are things that only exist in the imagination. There is no evidence that ghosts exist, so there is no reason to assume that they do.

Most people only "know someone who saw a ghost or experienced a ghost." Of course, all of these encounters are easily explainable.

Either:

1. Someone saw, heard, felt something that they perceived as a ghost which was not.

or

2. Someone is lying about their supposed encounter.

Chels --

Dan and Nathan have clearly stated what I was getting at. But you now are faced with a problem of logic. You have three choices you can make at this point:

1. You can insist ghosts exist, which means you will need to supply evidence to supply a foundation for your belief. If you cannot supply such evidence, and stick with your position then you are demanding an assertion is proved by it's own conclusion, which is circular and logically invalid.

2. You can concede ghosts do not exist. However, by giving up a previous key assertion so easily, you must now defend why you do not also just as easily give up your assertion about souls/spirits since they are from the same foundation as ghosts. This creates a crumbling of all the logic which precedes it, which is logically ok, but not very helpful to your argument as it ultimately defeats it.

3. You can claim to be agnostic on the issue of ghosts, which be extension makes you agnostic on the issue of souls and spirits (you cannot have uncertain knowledge in one area but certain knowledge in another using the same criteria). This is logically consistent, but not very powerful as an argumentative position.

You will note this is the same three positions people have about God's existence. And you can see that only 2 and 3 lead to a logically consistent conclusion.

You also said:

"Christians believe in some kind of heaven/hell, but Athiests believe in... non existence?"

Again, you use a conclusion as an assertion. How do you know heaven/hell constitute existence? Perhaps we can define what it means for something to exist? I use the following definition:

"If two or more people, using the same protocol, independently agree upon the empirically measured attributes of an object with a given statistical variation, then it exists"

I think you would agree that such a definition of heaven/hell is impossible to achieve. If heaven/hell do not exist then it is clear that Christians also believe in non-existence.

Using logic anyway, which the natural w orld is not bound by. In support of this, I would note that in my definition above of existence, if the universe contained only individual, everything would cease to exist. Which I sincerely doubt. A variation on the "if a tree falls in the forest..." I guess.

Okay, thanks for answering my question. But really, I have another choice. I asked the question simply because I was curious (as you can all tell I know nothing about Athiests). So now I'm going to accept your answer as your opinion.
What I'm getting from this is that you generally go by the saying "If I can't see it, hear it, touch it, etc, than it doesn't exist." I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

Hi Chels --

What is the other choice? Please don't leave me with an unknown flaw in my logic!

"What I'm getting from this is that you generally go by the saying "If I can't see it, hear it, touch it, etc, than it doesn't exist." I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong."

I do not define existence as evidence obtained by my own five senses. From the definition I gave, it is more precise and repeatable. It requires multiple observers to be in agreement statistically.

Remember however, I gave my definition as an opportunity for you to give yours, as your definition is integral to answering your question about heaven and hell and non-existence. How can I describe my belief in "non-existence" if I cannot contrast to your undefined belief in the "existence" of heaven and hell. I do not know of any trusted external reference that defines heaven and hell, so I am dependent upon you to give me a basis so I can then state how my belief may differ from yours.

There is one thing I can tell you about atheists however. Using Carl Sagan's "Dragon in the Garage" analogy. atheists believe that there are no dragons in any garage. Theists, on the other hand, believe in an infinite variety of dragons in an infinite number of garages. So when you ask "what does an atheist believe" you get one answer, very specifically stated. The real question is "what do theists believe", and why can't their certainty supply a coherent answer.

"If I can't see it, hear it, touch it, etc, than it doesn't exist."

I would rather say that if something has no evidence to suggest it exists, then it likely does not exist.

Hey R.C.-

I guess, in the real sense of things, there is no other choice. But I meant that I didn't really want to argue with you, because no one will benefit. You know, the whole "choose your battles" thing. I asked the question, and got an answer. It doesn't always have to go further than that.

That makes sense. Thank you.

Yes, then, I believe that heaven and hell exist, just as I believe in souls and ghosts. But since you won't accept the Bible, I don't see how we can argue about it. You seem well educated enough to know the Christian stance on heaven/hell. I don't think this question needs much more than "I think it exists, you think it doesn't exist." That's about as different as it gets.

Honestly, I could say anything I want, and you could deny it and come up with sources and evidence to attempt to disprove it. On the other hand, you could shove tons of science in my face and I could still claim that God exists.
What I'm getting at is that Christians could supply a coherent answer to you, and you could choose not to accept it.
That's why I say I choose my battles, because this just opened up a ton of other topics, such as, why do I have to either deny science or deny God? I believe in the Bible, but I also believe that evolution could have happened. What's to stop me from saying that God caused evolution to happen? I don't take the Bible literally. Jesus spoke in parables, and there could be many other parables in the Bible.

Say that's weak and idealistic, but at the end of the day, I don't see how religion is taking away from society. Maybe my belief in God makes me feel better about myself or about death or whatever. How is that so wrong? I understand that many non-believers say that people should be good for goodness's sake, not because they're afraid of eternal damnation. Okay, that's fine with me, and I even agree with it. But every week my church donates to some good cause, such as AIDS. I think we both agree that's a good thing.

Thanks for your time.

Chels --

You said:

"But I meant that I didn't really want to argue with you, because no one will benefit."

I think of these discussions as a debate not an argument (though we "make" arguments to support our points.

I surmise you are leaving the discussion, but there is one thing I will leave with you, and that is your perception of "benefit"

I hope you will take look at the history of mankind, so you can appreciate the "benefit" of exchanging superstition for science. Before the age of science and rational thought, the odds are you would not have lived long enough to be engaging in this discussion. Superstition halts progress, as it replaces intellectualism with dogmatism. There is no benefit to superstition.

You may decide to spend you time in church, surrounded by those who believe as you do. But make no mistake, everything that makes your comfortable life possible has been provided by people who took an agnostic or atheistic position, and who did not accept the assumption that God will provide. This is the benefit you derive from rational thought.

When your church donates to a cause such as AIDS research, you are implicitly acknowledging that God is not a factor in the welfare of man, that only science and reason can cure disease. This is the benefit.

When the founding fathers created a country that placed a wall between church and state, their rational thinking protected us from religion and theocracy. A secular (non-theistic) society provides you the benefit of worshiping as you please.

The agnostic's and atheist's reward for providing these benefits has been second class citizenship, loss of home and employment and medical services, and in many cases, execution. We are scorned and shunned. But we press onward, because we know that mankind would have disappeared an a fog of disease, war and genocide by now without our efforts.

R.C.-

Okay, I don't want to debate with you. I stated my reasons why.

That's an interesting take, because I've really never thought of religion as superstition.

Oh, there's such a thing as religious science. That's why I was wondering why you think it essential that a person either denies Christ or denies science.

Yes, that's certainly a benefit. And just because humans have the ablility to find cures (through science), that doesn't mean that God isn't there.
Why do you think we are here, anyways? Is there no reason, just the Big Bang and evolution?

Yes, Athiests have been shunned and scorned, just like Christians and Mormons and everyone else out there. Where there are differences, there will be fighting. Athiests have done some amazing things, but so have theists.

Oh, there's such a thing as religious science. That's why I was wondering why you think it essential that a person either denies Christ or denies science.

Science and religion are not compatible---at least not any religion that makes miraculous claims.

Take, for instance life after death. This is scientifically impossible. We know that human consciousness only exists because the human brain exists. Without the brain (as seen in brain damaged victims), consciousness does not exist. To say that someone can continue "living" after one dies, is unscientific nonsense.

R.C. said
"The agnostic's and atheist's reward for providing these benefits has been second class citizenship, loss of home and employment and medical services, and in many cases, execution. We are scorned and shunned. But we press onward, because we know that mankind would have disappeared an a fog of disease, war and genocide by now without our efforts."

Wow, if that isn't the most gratifying speech I've ever heard. What are you doing to prevent war and disease? Sitting on your ass?

Chels,

No debate then, I will just tell you what I think.

You said:

"I've really never thought of religion as superstition."

By this I take it you mean you have have never thought of you religion as superstition, just the religion of others, such as Aztecs, or Ancient Greeks. So if you take a step back as I have done, it is not difficult to see all religions as superstition.

"Athiests have done some amazing things, but so have theists."

It is absolutely true that theists have done some amazing things, but none of things they have done could not have been done by an atheist who maintained his/her core beliefs. What history has shown me though, is that theists must often give up their core beliefs in order to progress. In fact, every generation, by necessity, is less theistic than the generation before it, as science and rationalism remove the mystery from the natural world. If you had been borne just 200 years earlier, you religious beliefs would still be Christian, but would be fundamentally different in ways integral to your daily life.

"Why do you think we are here, anyways? Is there no reason, just the Big Bang and evolution? "

Because simple probability tells us that there is one way to have nothing, but an infinite number of ways to have something. And I feel no specialness about it being me (or us).

I also feel that attributing our existence to a God does not create more "reason". If one accepts God as the reason for existence, then one must ask why does God exist? Avoiding infinite recursion, or circular reasoning at this point is impossible. I like answers to my questions to reduce the number of variables, not increase them.

It is often asserted by religious folk that atheists have no purpose to their lives. I have accepted this premise as a challenge, and agreed to attend an evangelical group on the condition that I be allowed to ask questions, supply information that conflicts with religious teaching, and state my views when challenged.

Every single time I am asked to leave after a few meetings. Not because I am disruptive, but because religious worship requires/demands that intellectual activity is left at the door. If I acceded to this demand, then to me, my life would have no purpose. I cannot help but find religious worship as life without purpose, because if I cannot engage to my fullest ability in the one activity that separates me from the other species on this planet, then I may as well not exist.

I think you will find my views very similar to most other atheists/agnostics/skeptics. And my world view is the increasingly dominant world view, as secular life is the de facto standard of all the socially developed countries in the world.

Wow, if that isn't the most gratifying speech I've ever heard. What are you doing to prevent war and disease? Sitting on your ass?

I think what R.C. was getting at is that society progresses not because of religion, but despite it. Science helps prevent and cure diseases. Religion does nothing for this cause.

Scientists are overwhelmingly atheist or agnostic, not religious.

I'm pretty sure that's what he was getting at, and his point is undeniable.

Johnc said:

"Wow, if that isn't the most gratifying speech I've ever heard. What are you doing to prevent war and disease? Sitting on your ass?"

Fair enough, though the intended audience (Chel's) seemed to find it helpful. She asked for information about atheism from a personal perspective, so I was attempting to oblige and got carried away.

I apologize profusely if I offended you in the process. You are really going to hate my follow up post, I guess.

R.C. said-

"It is absolutely true that theists have done some amazing things, but none of things they have done could not have been done by an atheist who maintained his/her core beliefs. What history has shown me though, is that theists must often give up their core beliefs in order to progress."

Yes, Hitler had a few of those amazing scientists.

"And my world view is the increasingly dominant world view."

YES! You're up to a whole 4%, keep going!


Nathan said-

"his point is undeniable."

Of course it's undeniable. Everyone in this forum agrees and builds on top of eachother.

Johnc -

John, you are trolling, which is rude. Please state a viewpoint, and defend it. Or ask a question.