Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Not always diametrically opposed to each other. But they disagree on things where they can't both be right. And they consider those disagreements immportant enough to be the basis of it being called a different religion.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

As someone unsure about the existence of God but leaning heavily against it I weigh in with this on the topic - I will be thrilled if I am wrong and there is a God. I live my life as morally as the vast majority of religious folks I know. Though I could always be a better person, I feel that if heavan isn't too exclusive I have a good shot at entrance. I would be thrilled if this happened.

Contrast this to folks who have spent many hours in church/synagogue/mosque worshipping a God that doesn't exist. Their purpose in life has been defined to a great extent by their religious views. I know because I grew up a devout Christian until I was a teenager and decided that not only religion but God logically didn't make sense and were inconsistent with much of what I saw in the world.

However, that sense of purpose and comfort and belonging I felt as a Christian is gone probably forever. And as I meander through life pondering the meaning of existence and why am I here? and all that other crap I envy those who still wrap their cold shoulders around that warm blanket of faith in God and take true comfort in it. It's nice to know God is waiting for you. I shudder to think what would happen to most people if that were taken away.

I would be thrilled if there was a God waiting - but I doubt I'm wrong and can't convince myself otherwise despite wanting to.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

If you can't find god in the theologies of religions, maybe it's because that's not where god is. Maybe you are revealing god to us in your life. If so, thanks.

PairTheBoard

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"There is "Plenty of evidence"? Did I miss something? Where? Enlighten me."

The reasonable evidence out there is plentiful for anyone truly seeking. The existing evidences is scientific, historical and archaelogical, literary, and sometimes supernatural. It is more than can possibly be listed in one post, so I am going to send you to some websites. Any of these are great, and I'll be happy to discuss anything you wish from these sites.

www.rationalchristianity.net
www.apologetics.org
www.carm.org
www.godandscience.org

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]
that sense of purpose and comfort and belonging I felt as a Christian

[/ QUOTE ]

and then

[ QUOTE ]
that warm blanket of faith in God

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not Faith you are describing, it is Community. Community is nice. Community is socially helpful. It can be dangerously conformist, but sometimes that is useful. It is also utterly mindless.

Faith, on the other hand, is rife with doubt and fear and pain. Faith can make you sick, and (when you get it twisted) it can make you turn against your Community with violence, literally or figuratively. Faith has almost nothing to do with Church. It’s less like “Nearer My God To Thee” and more like the DMX song “Who We Be.” It is a big risk, to have true faith, because:
A. You must think about it, and doubt it, and therefore you may lose it and become a different (happier? unhappier?) person.
B. You may think you’ve found the voice of god, and he may ask you to do some crazy s**t.


Mt.10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." –J.C.


I’ve always interpreted this to mean: division and strife IN THE LIFE OF THE BELIEVER. That’s sort-of my problem with the supposed dichotomy discussed in this thread; believers vs non-believers. It seems to me more like: Blind Conformists vs Professional Againsters, neither of which is the best example of anything.

Neither a thoughtful atheist nor a thoughtful religious person can sleep well at night. That’s the price of knowledge-seeking.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]
"There is "Plenty of evidence"? Did I miss something? Where? Enlighten me."

The reasonable evidence out there is plentiful for anyone truly seeking. The existing evidences is scientific, historical and archaelogical, literary, and sometimes supernatural. It is more than can possibly be listed in one post, so I am going to send you to some websites. Any of these are great, and I'll be happy to discuss anything you wish from these sites.

www.rationalchristianity.net
www.apologetics.org
www.carm.org
www.godandscience.org

[/ QUOTE ]

From godandscience.com

Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer - Double blind, scientific studies validate the efficacy of Christian intercessory prayer.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

"That’s sort-of my problem with the supposed dichotomy discussed in this thread; believers vs non-believers. It seems to me more like: Blind Conformists vs Professional Againsters, neither of which is the best example of anything."

The Bible doesn't ask for "blind" faith. Blind faith is very, very dangerous.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Here's the link for anyone else reading this:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

[ QUOTE ]

The Bible doesn't ask for "blind" faith. Blind faith is very, very dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize it until this post, but I think we can count another "Agnostic who just doesn't know it yet" in the chat forum. If you ever want to become openly agnostic, we have cool jackets.

Re: Sklansky has it backwards
 

Lol. I believe I'll politely decline the offer. There is too much evidence to resort to that. :-)