Note To the Religion Advocates

[David Sklansky]

From day one, my problem has always been only with those people who have specific religious beliefs along with the opinion that those beliefs are not only possible, but highly likely, even without resorting to "faith". In other words they think that a knowledge of the facts and a logical and unbiased mind, would lead someone to think their specific beliefs are probably right. Txaq007 is the worst culprit.

Most religious people don't have this view. Of course that opens up problems such as how they can claim someone shouldn't be a Mormon or Muslim. That's for another thread.

Meanwhile many posters on this forum are much stronger in their anti religious view than I am. I only want people to admit that their specific religous beliefs deserve to be considered big underdogs in the eyes of a educated observer without faith. But many here say the same thing about God in general. I'm not so adament about that, though I think they are right. The problem is that the athiests don't always make themselves clear. Because of that religious posters go after them with arguments about the creation of the universe, the Big Bang etc. And in their zeal to counter these arguments these atheists resort to explaining why the universe needed no creator.

But that is off the subject. Because from my standpoint this isn't the issue that needs be decided. And based on my thread about the sixth dimensionsal high school kids, atheists evidently agree with me. Quoting Piers:

"However I think it needs to pointed out to some people, that just because something might have created the universe, it does not follow that a biblical god exists, prayers are answered, life after death is possible and the belief of all or any religion are or is correct. This is true even if we decide to label whatever sequence of events might have created the universe (on or a subset thereof) God."

I think many religious peole didn't realize that atheists actually feel this way and have no problem with the concept of a creator. And that the debates about religon should start from this point

[kbfc]

I'm 1500 hands into a marathon party poker session, so this will be short and sweet:

Good post. I'll read it again later, but I think you've expressed my sentiments exactly.

[DougShrapnel]

Nailed another post David. I just have one question tho, if you don't mind. Awhile ago you stated that you wish to give people that Aha feeling of gaining and understanding something complicated and new. As the teacher you are, you find great satisfaction in helping people achieve new understandings. Was the bar always set at getting some believers to understand that thier faith isn't as certain as they claim it to be, or did it shift down from a loftier goal? And if it did shift down from that loftier goal, is this just a step along the way to getting back to that original goal?

[David Sklansky]

That was always the bar.

[Lestat]

I do agree that the realization atheists are not as opposed to the idea of a creator as may have been previously thought, might make a good starting point.

But good luck trying to convince someone that their belief's are an underdog based primarily on your testimony that says an unbiased review would say so. The problem is that their beliefs are already deeply rooted in large part, upon testimony.

I would think it's very difficult to hold a belief which you sincerely consider to be underdog. That's almost an oxy-moron, isn't it?

[David Sklansky]

"I would think it's very difficult to hold a belief which you sincerely consider to be underdog. That's almost an oxy-moron, isn't it? "

That wasn't what I said.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
"I would think it's very difficult to hold a belief which you sincerely consider to be underdog. That's almost an oxy-moron, isn't it? "

That wasn't what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]



I'm confused.. Aren't you saying that the belief of say Catholicism, would be a collective dog when put against all other religious beliefs by an expert evaluator? And aren't you further implying that people like Txaq007 should recognize this?

[ QUOTE ]
But that is off the subject. Because from my standpoint this isn't the issue that needs be decided.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.


But I find it ironic coming from someone who just started this thread:

[ QUOTE ]

God Created Us "In His Image"?
Just curious what that is supposed to mean. I doubt that even most religious people take that statement seriously. But for those who do (and that seems to include Not Ready), I'm curious what they think that means, especially considering his "infinite nature".

Is he three dimensional?

Is he higher than three dimensional but his three dimensional "shadow" is like us?

Does he use legs to stand on something? Is there gravity where he is?

Does he have a pancreas? Eyes?

I mean cmon. I could ask an endless number of questions like this that make the "in his image" comment seem ridiculous in light of other attributes he is supposed to have. So to those who believe that comment, what gives?

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread is off topic, and I think there is nothing illogical about a creator creating us in "his image", since it isn't specified in what respect this image is to be taken. You admonish atheists from straying from the point, and I agree.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile many posters on this forum are much stronger in their anti religious view than I am. I only want people to admit that their specific religous beliefs deserve to be considered big underdogs in the eyes of a educated observer without faith. But many here say the same thing about God in general. I'm not so adament about that, though I think they are right. The problem is that the athiests don't always make themselves clear. Because of that religious posters go after them with arguments about the creation of the universe, the Big Bang etc. And in their zeal to counter these arguments these atheists resort to explaining why the universe needed no creator.

But that is off the subject. Because from my standpoint this isn't the issue that needs be decided. And based on my thread about the sixth dimensionsal high school kids, atheists evidently agree with me. Quoting Piers:

"However I think it needs to pointed out to some people, that just because something might have created the universe, it does not follow that a biblical god exists, prayers are answered, life after death is possible and the belief of all or any religion are or is correct. This is true even if we decide to label whatever sequence of events might have created the universe (on or a subset thereof) God."

I think many religious peole didn't realize that atheists actually feel this way and have no problem with the concept of a creator. And that the debates about religon should start from this point

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get this straight. We are now acknowledging that the concept of a creator is a reasonable belief for someone to hold. Am I correct in saying that?

Once that is acknowledged, one can move on to other available evidence as to which religion, if any, is reasonably correct. There is plenty of evidence out there that supports Christianity.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile many posters on this forum are much stronger in their anti religious view than I am. I only want people to admit that their specific religous beliefs deserve to be considered big underdogs in the eyes of a educated observer without faith. But many here say the same thing about God in general. I'm not so adament about that, though I think they are right. The problem is that the athiests don't always make themselves clear. Because of that religious posters go after them with arguments about the creation of the universe, the Big Bang etc. And in their zeal to counter these arguments these atheists resort to explaining why the universe needed no creator.

But that is off the subject. Because from my standpoint this isn't the issue that needs be decided. And based on my thread about the sixth dimensionsal high school kids, atheists evidently agree with me. Quoting Piers:

"However I think it needs to pointed out to some people, that just because something might have created the universe, it does not follow that a biblical god exists, prayers are answered, life after death is possible and the belief of all or any religion are or is correct. This is true even if we decide to label whatever sequence of events might have created the universe (on or a subset thereof) God."

I think many religious peole didn't realize that atheists actually feel this way and have no problem with the concept of a creator. And that the debates about religon should start from this point

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get this straight. We are now acknowledging that the concept of a creator is a reasonable belief for someone to hold. Am I correct in saying that?

Once that is acknowledged, one can move on to other available evidence as to which religion, if any, is reasonably correct. There is plenty of evidence out there that supports Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we can move on. But are you willing to move on from the standpoint that "creator" doesn't necessarily mean divine God? It might, but it might not.

So before you start arguing *which* religion is correct to believe in... I'd like to hear arguments for why *any* religion should be believed correct