just clarification is all... Rom. 6:23 is explaining it as a consequence of sin, not caused by sin.

...or with every regard, yet also taking into consideration it's necessity to survive itself.  I don't think the human race has flourished so because the universe has 'no particular regard for the wel-being of the life-forms...'

is a punished child a child who suffers?  Some would say yes, a third world resident would greatly disagree.    It seems that opinion is purely perspective. 

to claim you know either way to the fact that you are aware of every mistake mankind has made from its beginning.  Who knows if the design needed that time of natural occurance... You wouldn't know either that if we didn't screw up, God would have kept us safe from physical harm.  Then again, some view death and suffering as a reminder to all those who are aware of it how well you have it and how much you have to be thankful for.  Sure, what of the other person.  Who ever said sufferring was a bad thing?  Love makes people suffer and hurt, but it's still viewed as a good thing by most.

many questions come into play here.  it depends on the angle you want to take too:

     a.  were they always like that?  if so why, if not, what changed them?

     b.  what is their purpose in the balance of the environment if any.

     c.  what caused them to be there of all places?

     d.  if God specifically created them as you say, then what in fact would be the reason?  

Basically you're assuming that God designed them when in fact there are many other possibilities including evolution.  I believe God created a self-sustaining universe that he doesn't dictate with puppet strings.  With that theory in mind, this universe is designed to adapt to change, thus allowing anomolies to form such as these to balance an inbalance somewhere.  Just a theory, but I do believe that might be the explanation of a lot of natural annoyances.

learn from your mistakes right?  I think if there was a reason for that person to survive, God would protect them from dying. 

so... without God, then there is no crime.  sweet! 

The problem with your philosophy above is that you see "evil" as a problem that only affects those who have a belief in God.  Crime is evil.  To conclude as you have is to say that there would be no problems without God. 

You don't believe in God... is your life perfect?

I am very familiar with the discussion you two had.  It is seemingly so in science that our sun happens to be an anomoly in stars and that most of them are in fact much much larger. 

The size of the galaxy in perspective of our planet is not unknown to us and it doesn't give me reason to believe that God does not exist.  Quite the contrary actually. 

It's funny how design can actually work.  all you need is something the size of a dime and half its thickness to allow a person to have endless creative possibilities (a computer) 

There is a theory that supernova's have somethign to do with how lightning happens on earth... I don't remember the whole explanation... but a supernova by the next closest star from us beyond the sun would still probably kill us.  Distance is important and thunderstorms are necessary for climatological balance.  it is possible there are more effects like this from the universe and it's possible that a creative design could be designed in such a manner. 

Did you give up?  No i didn't.  the point of the conversation was that geography and your scenario doesn't decide a belief and what that particular person will follow.  I gave you one of literally thousands of scenarios and you assume 10% of the population is applied here.  I'll respond to each part seeing as it seems you are seeking that...

kind of out in left field, but no basis in reality here.

a minority nor majority is correct by default in any situation.

no to all of the above

no, but were they wrong because they were manipulated and didn't know any better? 

ok, moving on now

The point is mainstream Christianity is not Christianity according to the Bible.  I do not claim my "religion" is unique anymore than you claim yours is... and yes, you're a part of religion as much as I am.  I diferenciate my following from mainstream Christianity because we actually take the time to learn about our following and not allow it to be dictated to us by another brain claiming they have divine intuition or special privilage to know more than we do.  In this manner, we believe that we follow it more accurately than mainstream Christianity be it taht most of them follow doctern and not scripture. 

yet Alaska has tropical rainforests... with snow!!!!

I digress

All you have proven with that example is that the masses are gravitating toward popularity.  This is true in any aspect and not just religion.  It proves nothing about the truth of any particular following. 

what part of me opening the floor to you makes you think I'm giving up?  If anything, that usually means one is willing to hear the other and possibly work with them.

I can tell.. you're probably not doing it on purpose, but your thought process makes you think it's much easier to explain than it is.  It just seems to me that you're expecting an answer like;  Why do you drink green tea?  Well, I like the health benifits... and it tastes good.

What happens in reality with this topic is you pick a focus and discuss it until exhaustion or until one wants to mov onto a different focus.  In most cases, after years of conversation and experience, either one will follow the others understanding or the 2 will part agreeing to disagree becasue they have agreed that they will never see each other's understanding eye to eye. 

I tell you to read a book because it saves about a years's worth of back and forth posts.  What you're asking is so general, i have to refer  you to a book to answer it.  Plus, I am only one person, and many times, I find others who can answer questions asked better than I can... thus again my recommendation to books.

by giving you the floor and letting you lead the conversation.  Quite a daring stance for someone who is supposedly following a make believe God. 

I'm not giving you anything because you're not giving me anything to work with... using your scenarios above...

It's like you're asking me as a politician... why are you a politician?  I don't know of anyone in a interview scenario asking someone that and expecting a specific answer.  Usually once they're a politician, they will be asked more specifically as you eluded to as a politician holding an opinion about something specific... so far yuo have not asked me why i hold an opinion of something specific, only why I am a politician.  I have a laundry list of reasons, some of which I have already listed off for you... all very broad topics as to which I already eluded to the fact that they would not answer your question... to which you responded that it didn't answer your question...

You want answers?  Start asking specifics!  Your attempt at comparing Muslim to Christianity was a start, but then again, it's like asking me, why do I support the democratic party and not the republican party.  I again could give you a whole novel on that. 

well, you have a start when you mentioned you have many questions about the validity of the Jesus story, but then you stop there.  I'm not pretending anymore because I'm giving up on waiting for you to start asking specific questions.  why don't you go on the validity of the story and start asking me some of the questiions you have... there we can move on and I can actually answer you something that wouldnt' take a whole book to answer.

this answer goes back to the democrat vs. republican example.

well, what I was trying to do there is maybe get you to ask something specific about either side... Muhammad was a more specific focus and you could ask specific questions about him.  Instead you feel I was avoiding. 

Using the analogy, stop asking me why I'm a politician, why I lean toward a particular political party and start asking me about the important issues like why i'm for community service in schools or why I am against using fossil fuels.

You really are deep into your delusion aren't you?

You've got to be kidding me. All this just so we could be stuck on an island with no way to get off. And a violent island with violent humans in a violent solar system in a violent galaxy in a violent universe, ALL JUST FOR US, how clever.

What would Child protective services do to a parent who caged their kid in a house full of child molesters, drug dealers, cockroaches, ecoli, asbestos ect ect ect?

But that is what humans have, a violent home, even if we were not killing each other, with bacteria trying to kill us all the time, disease of all kinds killing us and children, ALL THE TIME, on a planet full of natural disasters that kill us all the time, with no way to get off this island. Not to mention a meteor will hit the planet again. And the sun will eventually expand and fry all life on this planet AFTER humans go extinct.

And scientists know that our species will eventually go extinct IF we don't kill ourselves off first. And no way to get off this rock. You are trying to tell me that this entire universe was made just for us. How pretty and delightful that we get to deal with violence and death and disease every day. What a plan, what a loving god.

Cap, the only way all this violence be it humans or nature, can make any logical sense is that nature and the universe are a WHAT and not a who. If one is going to postulate a who then this claimed who could only be called a sadistic self centered monster.

"The universe is big" we both agree with that. The difference is that I don't let my sense of awe OF BOTH THE GOOD AND BAD in the universe allow me to insert an invisible super brain as the cause. Such a being to me would only be worth condemnation.

If you buy a car and it crashes because the manufacturer built it with defective breaks, wouldn't you be rightfully upset? How you can call all the violence on this planet and in the universe part of a god's plan is not only absurd but reprehensible as a concept.

However, when one knows that there is nothing or no one to blame because a WHAT is what is going on, it makes all this easier to understand and accept.

wouldn't that show that your reasoning in turn is flawed then??? eh.. anyway

I beg to differ about my failing to respond.  I responded with exactly what I was looking for from you unlike your responses has been... I've been trying to be as specific as our conversation has gotten at this point... which isn't very specific... it is in your court to pick specifics at this point because I have given that power to you.  That is a great power to have and could shut down anyone of false understanding in a second. 

A little inside on cultish religions... the number one rule in converting others into a cult is to never let the other person control the conversation.  I am allowing you to control the conversation... a big no-no if my belief is false. 

or just researched it more...  You apparently think you're more right than Christians in general becasue you've thought about it more... am i wrong?  If so how?  If it's not research and understanding that makes one think they're more right, then what is it? 

who said they (mainstream Christianity) were normal viewpoints... mainstream Christianity doesn't even have a "normal" understanding of what they think they know.  You need to do your history of culture homework more. 

I'm glad you're finally starting to see that... now let's drop the moron act and start asking some serious questions.  The floor is yours. 

I'm curious on what reasoning you feel I've actually given you.  I don't believe there's much as of yet be it that we haven't made much progress in a conversation. 

Here's the thing, you're coming from an outside perspective and asking me to (metaphorically speaking) let you build a car with what you know when in fact you have no comprehension of where to begin building. 

You want to know why I feel my belief is "more right" than other beliefs and yet you don't care to find out why I believe in a god period.  I could give you a million reasons why i believe my following is right and others are wrong, but I would also expect each and every reason to hold no water with you becasue you can't grasp God.  All you think you know is that there is no God and everyone in a religion is fooling themselves.  Why would you expect me to elaborate with you on why Christianity is "the right way" when you can't grasp the real issue, God? 

One step at a time... why are there a majority of people in the world believing in a higher power should be the first question off your tongue.  I will then ask you to specify (that means be specific in your answer) why you think there isn't a higher power.  That's not me avoiding the question, that's me narrowing down the topic choices from 1 billion to a comprehendable number. 

Now, do you want to try this approach or do you want to keep avoiding the issues because you're obviously more right than most people in the world?

despite what people want to think, I never purposely avoid any question.  i may have missed your point, though if I remember correctly, I was simply pointing out in my reply that your point had no relevence to the topic at hand.

I see where you're coming from.  I have given you general responses as you're referencing to e.g. "I follow Chrisitianity according to the Bible and do not affiliate myself with any particular denomination..."  among other general responses that could start a conversation, but for some reason, that isnt' sufficient for you. 

I have also tried that particular approach in other forums... maybe even this one where I wrote a short essay on my following, but it quickly got submerged in typical disregard for reasoning on why I follow the Bible and those particular points becasue no one believes in God.  Therefore, to avoid a completely repetative conversation which that always ends up being... (speaking from experience there), I open up the floor to all those challenging my belief so that they can focus on the issues that they particularly have with what I follow.  with that new approach, i had finally gotten some intelligent conversations going.  it's funny how I lose the majority with that, but then again, it shows who really has been "thinking" and who assumes they know. 

Which category do you think you fall in?

Just to clarify from the last statement too.  I have tried that approach and on this site... it crashes and burns because few care about understanding when something comes along that contradicts what they think they know.... so it seems anyway. 

Tell you what... Do you want to try the "why God" in general approach or do you really want me to give you a general summary of what I believe... and if it's what I believe, do you want the why I believe in Christianity and not another following, or do you want what my particular following believes?  If you want to stick with why God, you can ask why i believe in God in general and will give you a short essay describing some of the reasons why I believe in a higher power.  I still believe that this would be a better way to start... then we can get all into the whole why this religion deal.

I will try this for you because you seem to be so insistant that this is the way you need to start a conversation.  I'm going to be quite disappointed with you however if all I get back is criticism and opposition and not intelligent questions seeking more information on why OR inteligent contradictory statements that explain why that particular reasoning is wrong in your eyes. 

..

Cap, everyone gets hung up on this because it is a stupid thing to say.  All pain and suffering is not the result of human choice, and when you say it is it makes you look like an lunatic.  You and Luminon are on the exact same page, and it is a page full of crazy.

Don't patronize me. You are not the master and I am not the grasshopper.

You have deluded yourself into believing that a brain with no brain exists. And this invisible non-material brain that resides everywhere and nowhere at the same time cares about our welfare. I cant stop you from claiming such absurdities, but if we go by your model for argument's sake all I would say to such is your invisible fictional friend would, if we pretend it existed, would have a funny way of showing his love for us.

The only way the good and bad in life makes any sense is that it is a what, not a who and especially not a super who that says it will protect us but fails to do so.

Life has good points and life can suck sometimes, but there is no super hero protecting us anymore than there is a pink unicorn protecting us. Shit happens and magic is not needed to state the obvious.

You want to believe in a non-existent super hero, I cant stop you, but based on your description of your invisible friend all I could call such a being(AGAIN, ASSUMING YOUR MODEL FOR PURPOSES OF ARGUMENT ONLY) Under the circumstances of your description the only answers that  would be acceptable would be malicious, deadbeat, incapable or incompetent or a combo of all those.

What I would not call such a claimed being is perfect or all loving or all powerful.

Strip it of all the superstitious bullshit and you don't have to defend these absurdities. "Shit happens" doesn't need the superfluous and needless comic book conflation you think is real.

It is called reality grasshopper. It is you, not me, that needs the help to be freed from your mind shackles.

I want to lick your brain.

Lol, I heard it on HBO's True Blood.  I like it.

get over yourself for a moment.  I've made it clear why I haven't just strait up answered your question and you've avoided taking the floor on the subject.  I get it, the pressure's great having the floor to yourself.  That's fine.  Take it down, I'll play your way.

I'm assuming your taking the definition that objectively means others can come to the same conclusion using the same means of research/experimentation. 

It's always good to clarify.

If you're just comparing my belief to other Christian sects, then I can show you how mine is true by the Christian Bible and supporting documentations through other means such as sciences, history, geology, geography, etc. 

If you're talkign about theists as a general statement as any belief that follows a deity of meta-physical origin, in most cases I can show you how their belief derived from a Judeo-Chirstian following and from there compare scriptures that the 'prophet' of that following based their understanding off of or compare to how they came to their understanding through othere means by what scripture, history and cultural understandings of the time say. 

You mention truth in your question.  How can I show my belief is "objectively true"  It seems that you were referring to just other religions following a meta-physical being, but just in case, if you were also referenceing to "Truth" meaning reality, I would have to back up and start with why i believe in God.  This again can be exampled through Science, History, Geography, Geology, Scripture, amidst other things.

Now... for some reason, i just feel like you might think I was "avoiding your question".  Let me clarify my intentions here.

I'm going to be as focused with you as you are with me.  You asked me "how can I show my belief is objectively true".  YOu did not elaborate on any aspect of my belief or why I belief in any particular thing and why that other sect would disagree.  Therefore, I gave you specifically and precisely what you asked.. nothing more, nothing less.

Now, if you want me to elaborate on any of those paragraphs above, please specify as to which one and also be specific as to a focus.  E.g.  Why Jesus and not Confucious?

I get that, but in order to battle a general topic, most times, you need to clarify the specifics.  Then you can work generally... I'm pretty sure I painted a picture for you of how that looks exactly.

I understand exactly where you're coming from.  Now you need to understand where i"m coming from.  I get that you need me to explain why i can justify those claims so much so that i dedicate my life to them.  I need you to start being specific.  Ask me why I accept a particular understanding... I'm not looking for "ok, why Christianity".  I'm looking for something like, why does Jesus have to be the only way to God, why not other means?  That would be a good question to ask.

Just to warn you, you will end up having more questions from my response and i will answer those as they come up, but we have to have a starting point and a specific one, because the questions themselves are going to get more and more general as we go.  We may start on Jesus and we may end up on the Big Bang.  Who knows.  It's where your interest lies and where your questions lead us. 

My North Korea example was only to show that Christianity is not bound by geographical location.  There was a claim that it was.  It has nothing to do with proving to you that it's the right way.

I haven't given you anything so far because I haven't been given anything to go by.  We started with a comparison to the Muslim faith and you got upset when I told you given the scenario that you had already done a bit of research to look into Muhammad.  Instead of asking me about Muhammad (something specific) you complain that I avoided the question. 

If you stopped complaining for a moment and just got more specific, we'd already be deep in conversation. 

See, the thing is, if you ever ask me a question I cannot answer, if there is an answer I will research it and find it.  This way, i can be assured what i think I know is true really is and at the same time show you why my faith is something I adhere to. 

I've told people on here many times, show me why I'm wrong.  Most of the time, i get people who seem to avoid that challenge entirely.  Some will try to challenge it and so far all challenges have been thoroughly and rationally explained.  By rationally I mean explained in a manner that makes sense to any neutral party.  If my answers are not sufficient I always ask where they fell short.  I lose a lot of people at this point because usually they cant' give me a strait answer. 

Are you like them or can you think for yourself?  Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, everyone's mind is programmed into thinking what they know has to be true.  With so many disagreeing people in the world, most people have to be wrong somewhere, however, when it comes down to justifying.  most people shy from specifics and run to the most broad topic available to take the focus of the real issues.  In some cases, that satisfies both parties and they agree to disagree.  Other times both parties disagree and leave still believing they're right and the other is wrong.   In my case, I say there has to be a Truth and therefore, we should sit down and tear it apart until we find that Truth.  That approach scares people because that might mean they have to face the fact that they were wrong.  I would have to too if I'm wrong.

The most difficult thing to do with people is to break the programming code and make them see the Truth.  I'm not even saying my belief is the truth, I'm talking about just in general making people take a step back from their understanding and look at it to see if what they've been living is really right or not. 

Did I mention i dont' like apologetics?  To me it's like saying; "i'm sorry i dont' have a better excuse"

In full disclosure here, I haven't given you much of anything but only specifically answered your questions.  You seem to think from that I have presented my case.  I feel you can't handle looking at your own perspective... but I as well am an optimist. 

If you feel you have shown me flaws in my reasoning... whatever that might be, please specify them for me... maybe that way we can start a conversation.

I only go by everyone elses lead.  Everyone keeps asking me about my belief and why I think Christianity is right and everything else is wrong.  To skip the whole why God process in general, we'd have to automatically assume a god exists to compare beliefs in gods. 

if it doesn't work for you, i'd expect you to ask me why God.  From there no one has to assume God exists and we can discuss the sciences, history, geography, geology, you name it.

Say what? The truth?

You are deluded and your pet deity is no more real than any other fictional character humans have manufactured and kept in their brain falsely believing them to be true.

You can be sarcastic all you want, still doesn't change the fact that you have fooled yourself into believing something that is false.

There is no such thing as a brain with no brain. There is no such thing as an invisible sky daddy. There is no such thing as a super hero. There are merely humans with a history of making shit up and falsely believing it to be fact. You are just one in billions in human history that buy into this fantasy crap and pretend that changing the packaging will make the skunk not smell. You merely like what you believe, and that is the truth of what is going on in your head, realize it or not.

You are not special and your god is no more real than Mickey Mouse or Thor.

I know.  I'm not being mean to you either.  I'm just as blunt.  Take it as you will, not as patronizing.

Of course, it's why I have been so adiment on researching it.

Start presenting.

I have challenged you to that... though it seemed too much for you to handle at the time.

I agree.  You... right... sorry you dont' read... I have said that feelings aren't why I believe.

oh no... you were on to a intelligent conversation again.  It really seemed like you were getting somewhere for once... don't stop now!!!

Not... the strawman again!!! Brian, NOOOOOOOOO!!!!

he's gone again.  Man, just when I thought rationality might persue.

I know you do

get off the feelings, is that why you don't believe because you dont' feel anything and that's it or do you actually have a rational reasoning behind your understanding? 

If not, you're basing your belief on the very thing your accusing me basing my belief on.

to whoever is scribing for Brian, please tell Him feelings aren't why we as Christ followers believe.  I know you haven't been telling hiim that part.  He needs to hear it. 

Just a little comment, for the moment, cap...

We most assuredly do need science to tell us that black holes are real, you are utterly and absolutely wrong on that point.

Perhaps you meant to make some other point, and mis-phrased it...?

Without Science we wouldn't even have a suspicion that anything like that existed, or even could exist.

We wouldn't even know that the 'ordinary' visible stars were not just some kind of lamps in the sky, rather than fiery balls of gas 100's or thousands of millions of miles across, many of them far larger than the Sun.

Cap, unless you have something more than internal experiences, intuitions, etc, you are the one basing your belief purely on 'feelings' in the broadest sense. Or at least a purely subjective feeling of what some real world event signifies.

Lack of such feelings is certainly not putting anyone on an equivalent standing, since we should not base our assessment of what is objectively real on 'feelings' and intuitions.

Such internal things may indeed suggest ideas to investigate, but the process of testing reality to determine whether any idea is actually more than a guess or hypothesis explicitly excludes subjective assessment as far as humanly possible.

On this ground, the God hypothesis has consistently failed miserably.

Cap, my position, summed up quickly.  A metaphysical worldview is supposed to be a consistent and coherent understanding of reality.  I will not accept the concept of the supernatural until someone explains how the natural and supernatural interact, a necessary condition for a coherent and consistent worldview.  Science is attempting to explain how natural things interact.  I don't see much work on reconciling the mind-body (or soul-body) problem that exists in most theistic philosophies.  If you can't explain how your 'soul' interacts with your natural body, you do not have a coherent worldview. 

You have the "feelings" and want to pretend, or flat out lie that it isn't about your feelings. Otherwise you could walk into a lab right now and show EVERYONE regardless of belief that your claims are true. You cant and you cling to your absurd claims because the REAL feeling you are really having which you are in self denial is , "What if I have spent all this time for nothing" which keeps you believing this crap. It can feel sucky when one is proven wrong. But when one looks at the upside of knowing the truth, it can be  quite liberating.

Do I have rational reasoning behind my understanding?

YES, for the umpteenth time.

Humans cannot be born without a second set of DNA.

Humans cannot survive permanent death.

Invisible brains do not exist, by any name. Thinking is a product of a material process.

Those are not things I claim because of my likes or dislikes. Those are facts of science that cannot nor should be ignored .

THAT IS NOT what any of us are saying here.

We are saying that when ANYONE utters something, rather than blindly believe it. Use something universal and unbias to kick the tires. The person making the utterance ON ANY ISSUE has to come up with the model and the test and then have the ability to replicate it and falsify it and then hand it over to others to independently kick the tires.

I have never seen a quark.  But SCIENTISTS have used basic science to detect their existence based on REAL method and REAL formulas that are universal. Believers of the super natural have nothing but their bias imagination.

We have no evidence of gods existing, of any name. On top of that the graveyard of myth keeps growing and getting filled with older myth. This SHOULD, say to you that the only thing this is evidence of is human credulity and our species far too mundane ability to fall for crap.

Considering that humans started claiming magical beings during an ignorant time in our evolution, it is unworthy of any consideration knowing what we know now. Anymore than you would find it credible if someone claim Thor was a real god knowing now that lightning and thunder are manifestations of natural processes not requiring an invisible being.

FACT, thinking requires material.

Black holes are a scientific FACT.

Quarks are a scientific FACT

Gravitational pull of celestial bodies is a scientific FACT.

God claims only prove human credulity. A history of making claims is not the same as a history of testing a claim. Otherwise the earth would be flat, because it was a popular belief at one time.

Gods as claims are nothing but a product of our human flaws. They are nothing but our projections of narcissistic anthropomorphism of what we want to be, not what is. It is nothing but projecting human qualities on the objects around us.

Reality is not glamorous. It is not a fairy tale. It is not a battle between a super hero and a super villain. Reality is humans make up shit because the placebo is so appealing to them, they would rather cling to that than face reality.

Your god will die when you die. All gods will die when our species go extinct. The gods aren't real, it merely means that when our brains die the thought people label god/s, will die with them because the material process that manifests into the thought will no longer be in tact.

THAT IS REALITY. You have merely allowed yourself to believe something false. Stop fooling yourself and face reality. YOU will be better off.

   Well, I'm not actually afraid of being sarcastic when I feel that it's appropriate.   Besides every member of this forum, both theist and atheist, bring their own style of communicating their message. Some are brutal while others are tactful and even eloquent. That's just the way it is.

  Obviously cap knows that I represent an opposing viewpoint but I don't want to put him on the defensive or think that I'm belittling his beliefs.  I prefer a more amicable exchange when possible.    Know what I'm sayin' homie ?

    ....carry on.

 Brian, I really do get what you're saying and like yourself I'm not worried that if I was more bombastic that cap would suffer a psychotic break as a result.  It's just a sense of decorum that I was addressing. Reasonably polite discourse does not require that one pull their punches or soft sell their arguments when making a point.   I've watched a few debates with Sam Harris and his opposition and he always maintains ( so far ) a very calm demeanor which seems to work effectively at maintaining an apparent sense of good will between himself and his opponents and eliminates wasted time in the tit for tat of deflecting personal insults. 

   Although perhaps it's entertaining to watch the Bill O'reilly / Jerry Springer style of discourse I've personally been involved in enough flame wars ( some which were my own fault ) that I prefer to just bypass that whole scenario.  That's just my personal preference not my advice to you.   Like I said, everybody does there own thing here to get their message heard, a little sarcasm isn't a bad thing, some people are really good at psychological warfare, others are dry and analytical, the wheels on the bus turn 'round and 'round.......