This was your attitude at the beginning of the thread:

This is a serious question thats serves two purposes for me but before I reveal my purpose please tell me; What would it take for you to believe in Christ?

If they found Noahs Ark and could prove it, if you saw someone healed (not on a Benny Hinn show), if you had a near death experience. What would it take. Please no smart ass asnwers, because this is an honest question.

This is your attitude now:

This ten year old boy affirmed why we have faith in my eyes. IT is for hope and having a greater purpose in life than just satisfying ourselves. I thought who's business is it to try to attack someones hope and why do they care. I looked also at why I care that anyone questions my Faith and my hope or why I feel the need to question them in what they believe. So if you ask me now what would it take for me not to believe I would have to say there is nothing that could take my faith from me. A ten year old boy and his courage in the face of death were proof to me of a loving and comforting God. It may be irrational to you but not to me it is very real and I choose Christ by faith.

I was trying to see if there was anyway other than physucal proof that any of you would believe in Christ or God. My own personal opinions on the issue are clear that I believe by faith. I have never waivered from that. I also stated that the proof that Athiests demand will never be seen. My recent comments were a reflection of my thoughts on the issue, my faith and what it takes for me to believe has never changed.

I think we all realized it was "proof" to you. I certainly did. The problem -- the continuing problem -- is that you permit anecdote and emotion to confirm your belief in jesus, but do not accept the same as proof for other gods. Tragedy has always been a part of humanity, and the majority of humans throughout history have not been christian. Obviously, the majority of humanity has not required a belief in christ to get by. So if this story is proof to you, it shouldn't be. If believing 2 + 2 = 5 gave someone hope in trying times, it would not serve to prove that 2 + 2 = 5.  Frankly a story of tragedy and hope would not even serve to prove that 2 + 2 = 4.

Why prolong life? Maybe because we want to keep on living? I for one find this life enjoyable enough that I would like to continue it, regardless of whatever hardships might come my way. Those who don't think life is worth living, of course commit suicide. I understand why you attempt this question; when I was a believer, I too felt that the only thing for an atheist to do was to kill himself, because without god, life has no meaning, so why would you want to live? But I came to realize, you don't need some supernatural being with the prospects of heaven or hell to find a reason to live. In fact, since there is no afterlife, I cherish this life all the more. This is all you have, make the most of it.

It is a more pertinent question why those who believe there is a better life than this one would seek to prolong this life, rather than moving on immediately to that celestial paradise they so ardently yearn for.

Its not a logical fallacy and I thought you said there was no God.

Sarcasm is obviously beyond you.

Its not a logical fallacy because all you preach is what are the facts what is the proof. Well the fact are the LAWS of nature dictate that everything dies. If following natural and scientific law is what you live by and rationalize your life by, then it would stand to reason that attemting tp prolong life is irrational and a direct violation of the very way you choose to live your life.

The facts and proof don't allow for god and jesus.  That's what's wrong with them. 

I sense genuine inquisitivness in that question. The answer might very well be yes. You should read Scott Atran. He is a neurologist who wants to know why people believe in religion. His work on the subject is very respected.

However, the problem I have with religion is not the fact that it is irrational. Humans are not inherently rational, and we certainly do not adhere to every instinct evolution patched together in life forms (because we create society).

The problem I have with religion, especially monotheism is that:

a) It is dogmatic

b) It is often forced on other people

c) It is often observed to stifle free thought

d) It is sustained by fear. It is the only system of belief that still maintains the idea of the afterlife and hell. I get appalled when monotheists tell people you must believe or you will go to hell.

Lastly, it is the only system of beliefs that adheres to mythology in the face of progress. NEarly every other system of religious belief has learned to accept science, they have also learned that the holy books are just stories. Stories that help guide people in the right direction like Aesop's fables. They are not real. But the monotheists have put up a violent struggle against reason, logic and science. It is dangerous and ignorant.

Your proposition based on the appeal to nature fallacy that you continue to blindly state is nonsense. By your logic, I should not wear a bullet-proof vest when venturing into an area where I might be exposed to gunfire, because it would be unnatural.

Furthermore, the fact that you even ask if there can be evidence for religious nonsense is well, nonsense. It shows that you have the same ability as in 1984, where the citizens could believe that war was peace and freedom was slavery if Big Brother said so. You freely admit that religion is based on supernatural concepts. Ergo, they cannot be verified. No evidence could possibly be presented otherwise it would not be supernatural. I already pointed out this logical contradiction as well as many others (ie transposing physical naturalism onto transcendant supernaturalism). These are all examples of religious doublethink.

You then defended your position by saying that your faith is sacroscant and not subject to logic or evidence. Typical cop-out. You would require evidence for everything else in this world, but when your arguments fall, you retreat dogmatically to faith. You admitted this yourself! Imagine a doctor strolling into the clinic and saying to his patient "You know what? I don't feel the need to take a urine test today. God will cure you". If you were the patient, would you find that acceptable? What about the architect who designed your house? "Hey, I don't need to insert foundation beams. It is a waste of time. I'm sure God will hold up the house just fine!" 

Would you tolerate that? Of course not! Why is it that this should be any more shielded from sane, rational inquiry than anything else?? Can you give me justification for your faith. And not an appeal to emotion (logical fallacy) like you did last time.

I already adressed this. You have not even made the effot to read, or even answer it. We as humans, or any species when we evolve want to know why we exist, why we are here, how we are here. Sadly, when we have no proof, or means to get proof we invent things that kind of make sense. "A glowing ball of fire, we make fire, so maybe something bigger then us made that fire in the sky! The sun god sol was born" etc etc etc. Now, that comforted people, it was a answer for people, then we got the means to understand, and prove how/why we are here and exist. However people do not want to give that old idea up. Hell an afterlife or perfect happiness, that is pretty comforting to most.

As for the story you gave, even though it is not even close to the orginal question you asked I will answer it. It's not that I do not believe in eternity or infinity. I very much do, however for something with a begining this is a impossiblity. I already addressed why in my last post check it out. Now I do not want eternity, I will be happy to embrace death when my chance comes. I know my existence will disappear, my thought will ceace to exist. However their is no way for me to expience or know how non existence could possibly feel, since I will no longer feel. However knowing before I die that I lived my life, to the fullest. I left behind my genes to pass on to the future. I left existence better then when I came into it. Just knowing that I can be happy never thinking again. It is scary, but trying to obtain any form of eternity you will never end up happy. Now for the kid, he felt comfort in believing in an afterlife. However comforting it would be for him, what if you had one though after you died, and could know their is no afterlife the only comfort you had. The last though you expierences was your mind fading away, and their is no heaven, or hell. Would it then be comforting? I'd be pissed myself, believing for no reason, knowing that it really should not of comforted me, and has not. 

It is true: it is not evolutionary instinct to seek God, it is evolutionary instinct to:

- seek comfort (and this is a result of being increasingly social)

- eliminate the unknown and unexplained

If you can shoot two rabbits with the same bullet, that would be two needs with the same imaginary friend, why not give people what they desire? Why not name yourself "high priest" or something? Why not keep the masses in a state of complete sheep-like obedience, almost completely subject to your control?

My "The gods that have suddenly become silent" has remained unanswered. Colby R, perhaps you would care to read & answer... that way you'll understand why at least I require really solid proof.

He didn't say dodge. He said "alter".

There was a picture with a girl sitting on the lap of her grandpa. Grandpa was reading her a story, and she was saying: "Oh, grandpa, I love it when you tell me the story of how sinful I am and how I deserve to rot in Hell..."

Someone else might be able to categorize it better than this, but that's essentially the black-or-white fallacy.   If humans did indeed have an evolutionary instinct to seek God, God existing is not *the* answer to why humans would do that, it is only one answer.  Humans *want* to believe all kinds of things that aren't true.

Furthermore, the whole thing is based on an as-yet unestablished premise: That there is an instinct to seek god.

So the fact that every civilization and culture have sought a God or gods that means there is no instinct to do so. Thats a very rational thought.

Not every civilization saught a god. Thats a un-true statment. All civilizations saught an answer, but alas most did arrive at a supernatural answer at first. Not all, however most. People do not like to be wrong. So when these answers were made up, say the sun god sol 10,000 years ago if you did not worship him, or send him scarifices, or maybe even try to find another answer he would burn you alive. All religions followed that pattern, so even when we had good explainations offered you would be put to death, or killed for them. People were afraid to go against the religion. Not until around 200 years ago people could not believe in god and not die. Is it not funny how these new theories we use today were researched and found then? Such as evolution? Funny that once it was alowd someone found evolution and gave it to the masses?

I was never drawn to a god myself, I had it forced on me. Later around 13-14 I became an atheist. 

Oh, but you are unfortunately very wrong. Do not forget that current day religions fall into two categories: theistic and NON-theistic. Furthermore, most non-theistic religions have "stood the test of time" far better than Christianity. So it is safe to say that at least 1/2 of the world population doesn't believe in a god, and I'm not refering only to atheists here.

However, since the non-theistic religions exist, and their sole purpose seems to be spiritual comfort, some rules and a few explanations, this is more proof for what I said: that the instinct is not to seek a god, but to seek comfort, and, possibly, a raison d'etre; a god is simply an accessory.

Buddism would be a non-theistic religion by definition, since they do not believe in a god. Buddah was not a god, they never claimed that.

Other then that off the top of my head I can not think of another good example that would get through your skull because your definition of "civilization" is bad.

Largest in China? Well thats a bad thing, however China is one of the biggest atheistic countries in the world, so Christian revolution won't do much. 

Yes that is the definition, glad you can use the dictionary. Thing is, that would cover just about any soceity, big or small if the soceity stood on it's own. Even tribes could be considered that, especially if they recorded their own history.

 Sidenot: I can not remember the name but it was in Africa, people who first saw white man come to them in airplanes, and give them some stuff before leaving. 40 years later, when we returned they were still worshiping those people as GODS that come in the giant birds to save them. Now, this tribe or civilization had no knowledge of science what so ever. Do you think they were gluible, or just did not understand what came to them.  Shit, now i'm going to be racking my head trying to figure out the area.

OK, Colby R, let me stop laughing.

I actually LIVE in China, and speak Mandarin, thus I think it would be fair to say I can speak from more experience on such a matter than yourself.

It is true that Christianity is growing here, and Christian churches are too. However, I found that the Christianity here is a very different breed from the insanity spewed forth in American by the KJV and the Evangelicals, the hell-mongerers and creationists.  

Here in china, religion is mostly an excuse to piss off the government. For centuries, this society ruled the world. They are extremely pragmatic and intelligent. If you told the average Han Chinese about the beliefs of Christianity, they would widen their eyes in horror and start laughing that men could believe such stupid nonsense as Second Coming and Hell and other insane dogma.

Either that, or they simply wouldn't be able to understand that people believe this garbage. I certianly fail to comprehend it... 

Why are you laughing? If what I stated is true then I dont see the need to laugh. I havent heard anyone preach out of the KJV of the bible in about 10 years. For the most part Christian evangelists have gone away from the believe or burn message to the more PC health and wealth message. I dont agree with either but thats not the issue. I will take your word on the reason people are accepting the faith but the fact reamains that the rise of Christianity in China is among the largest evangelical movements in the world. 

I hope that you are right about the evangelicals, Colby.

Personally, whenever someone preaches believe or burn, I almost want to throw up. What kind of God would eternally torture those who had the misfortune to be born into a different creed of faith, or had used logic to come to the conclusion of his nonexistence? Surely men of logic, God would nod more approvingly to than those who claim to be his men, doing nothing with their lives except muttering verses of scripture under their breath?

Believe or burn is a centuries old tactic of the Church. They used to steal a very (very) large amount of money from people (it used to be possible to purchase insurance out of hell or buy your grandfather out of purgatory). The fact that people still believe it is essentially a form of self-subjugation. The fact that children are raised with it is sickening child abuse.

  I will take your word on the reason people are accepting the faith but the fact reamains that the rise of Christianity in China is among the largest evangelical movements in the world.

I never knew they were Evangelicals. It is actually Catholicism that gained a foothold in Asia, never Lutheranism. The European Jesuits were the first to come here.

Interestingly enough, you just reminded me of something. I just returned from Vietnam, a short stopover in Ho Chi Minh city. Vietnam is a communist nation with 55 ethnicities and four big belief groups: Atheists, Buddhists, Catholics and Muslims. And all these people lived in complete peace. No messages of violence, no indoctrination, religion very much plays a background, personal role in people's spiritual lives.

Unlike in the West. When I go back, I am astounded by just how much like war the whole business seems to be. I think that if people could just live their spiritual lives in peace without having to attempt to instill fear in the hearts of others, preach insanity, or HTT syndrome, or forced upbringing of a child with a certain religion, or the rest of the general obscenity that comes with organized religion in the west. I feel always that if we could learn to be more like the East, it would be far better.  I certainly would have no more reason to post here... 

I can not resepond to every single post. I try to respond to as many as I can and to issues I think pertain to this issue. If a tree fall in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise arguments I cant respond to all the time. Also please dont speak about fringe fanatics as if they are the majority or even close. They are a small faction in the Christian community just like every other community has it wackos.

Deluded that was a good post and I agree with many of your points. Not for the same reasons but I agree. I think another misconception of many Christians and probably of myself that many of you have is, that we agree with whatever a church says. Thats not the case, I have the ability to read the bible and come to my own conclusions as to what it is teaching. I would say a huge issue is people believing in CHrist and never picking up the bible to see what it says and just listening to a preacher.

As a personal proof as I stated yes I do. I never expected you to accept it as proof. Also I think there is a happy medium in the bible one that is not PC nor hateful but honest, this is where I sit.

So...you would say the chair is half there?

This isn't a glass half full / half empty kind of topic.  Either god exists or he doesn't.  Either Christianity is true or it's not.  That's why moderation in religion is intellectually bankrupt.