you just did say something negative.  Apparently, you feel that it is better for children to bond with the woman who gave birth to them.  Some women are amazing mothers.  They give birth to a beautiful child and have the best of all bonds with them. There are other women who just get knocked up.  They don't want their child, so they give it to someone else.  This is not the second best plan.  This isn't the runner up to a good family life.  It is not in any way bad or less than.  The fact that you don't understand that what you say is hurtful and insulting to me shows how deep this societal view runs.  

Wow. I'm really late to this party. The subjects in this thread have veered here and there and everywhere.

I admit to rolling my eyes multiple times.

However, I cannot be completely quiet even though this has absolutely nothing to do with original sin.

I have several friends that are adoptive parents. In my opinion, because the children were desperately wanted*, I really think they ended up bonding more closely with their adoptive parents than a lot of planned children bond with their birth parents.

*Wanted more than anyone can possibly imagine. I know people who have traveled to South America, Russia and Cameroon to adopt children. The adoption processes were grueling and the red tape stifling. Yet they wanted these children so badly, they endured it.

So, you may see your anti-theist remarks here as harmless, but I see them as having the potential to grow into something much more ugly.

You think theists will be on the recieving end of atheist bigotry? Have you ever been to Iran? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Hell, even the midwestern United States and the Bible Belt.

y opinion is that we all could be potentially on the giving or receiving end of the holocaust.

Ever seen that pie chart of the Christian majority block looking like pac-man shouting Help, we,'re being opressed! Seriously, considering everything that atheists put up with, we have every right to be angry.

btw just a hint. The reason people are angry with you is because you don't really respond in argumentative fashion. That's what this forum is about. But I haven't seen a great deal of that from you. You tend to stick to emotion-based arguments and that raises people's blood pressure when trying to argue. Just a suggestion IMHO. Also, there is still one more post I left for you (I think it was just after or just before the one about the biochemistry of love.

I was not joking. I was not being melodramatic. I was being honest about the fear you all are placing in me based solely on my belief system.

 If you have a problem with the labels, talk to the mod team. You wont get anywhere though. We have discussed this tirelessly. We found that without it, we have theists coming here, pretending to be atheists, and spamming like crazy. So now we have the labels, and there are no exceptions. Most theist forums block atheists all toghether. So fucking what if we have labels to keep debates orderly. That is what they are about.

I'm interested in how monotheisic theology necessarily implies God-determined predestiny. I'm not sure why divine knowledge, will, or action would be anything like human knowledge, will, or action. In fact it seems necessary that any of these attributes of God would be different from those attributes in humans. I think we miss a great deal of what God is if we ascribe human characteristics to him. If we accept, for a moment, the definition of God as omnipotent (what that word actually means or if it means anything to us I'm not sure, II see ompnipotence more as "this is the way the world/universe is" and humans not having the ablitilty to change that, not necessarily "God can do anything he wants&quot then could not God limit his power as well? Would using his power to limit his knowledge reconcile the God-determined predestiny?

I just read over Chapter 3 of Genesis, the story of the fall. (I admit I hadn't read it in awhile.) I don't see where God damns Adam and Eve's descendents for an eternity (perhaps you were referring to elsewhere in the Bible?). I don't see how Christianity (perhaps you mean fundamentalist, literalist, Chrisitianity, if you mean this then I completely agree with you) is refuted in the first 3 chapters of Genesis. I do see a story that explains some key truths:

1) Eventually humans come to knowledge of good and evil

2) Humans are tempted to do evil things

3) Innocence ends

4) People are from dust (the stuff of the earth) and they will return to that dust when they die

Those things are true regardless of the literal truth of the story, and it does not take a great deal of interpreting to come to these truths. Those are the important things about the story. Honestly, who really cares if a serpent really crawled through a garden and tempted people with fruit from a tree?

We are talking christian monotheism.

If you are really interested as to why christian monotheism implies 'god' determined predestiny, pick up a bible.

Omniscience

This section works in two parts. Part I builds the case that the books of the bible assert god's omnipotence. Logically, omnipotence plus Omniscience in a creator necessarily leads to a creator that is perfectly responsible for creation, leading to predestination.

 However, since theists are often not all that bothered by committing internal contradictions, they may still insist that this does not lead to predestination.

Therefore, Part II shows how the bible continually asserts that 'god' predestined the world.

 This following states that god is a god of knowlege - implying that he knows all:

1 Samuels 2:3 Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

God's knowledge is so great that he is able to count the number of the stars; He gives names to all of them, and he even names them all:

Psalm 147:4 '(god) telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names.'

God is also said to know even the number of hairs on our heads:

P. 10:30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Next, god sees everything:

Genesis 22:14. god is called "the Lord Who Sees" (Adonai Yireh).

Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

Not only does god see all, no one can hide from god

Job 42:1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
42:2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

Ps.139:7-8 "Whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."

Jer.16:17 "For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes."

Hebrews 4:13) Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

god also hears all

Psalms 94:9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?

The inner most thoughts of men are known to god...

Proverbs 15:11 Hell and destruction are before the LORD: how much more then the hearts of the children of men?

1 samuels 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

In case there remains any doubt, this sorta makes my point plainly

Ps.44:21 "He knoweth the secrets of the heart."

Ps.139:2-3 "Thou knowest my down-sitting and mine up-rising; thou understands my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.

Paul in the new testament also tells us that god knows our innermost thoughts:

Acts 1:24 "And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men."

Nothing is hidden from god:

Hebrews 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Jer.23:24 "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth?"

matthew assures us that god hears our secret prayers:

matthew 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Part II Predestination:

God knows both the past and the future perfectly:

Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

Because 'god' determines the past and future, perfectly:

46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

if god says something will happen, it will happen, because he is the ultimate cause and sustainer of all action:

Isaiah 46:11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

and he knows all that happens because he causes everything that happens:

matthew 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

again, god is omniscient because he planned everything perfectly, before any of us even existed:

Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

all that happens is already known to god, and written in his book:

revelations 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

god knows all because all is already written: the book of revelations also tells us that the damned were damned before they were even born:

17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

jesus also verifies that all was already known to god before any of us were born:

matthew 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Paul also chimes in and agrees:

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

an old testament version of this same claim:

Jeremiah 1:4 Now the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.

From a newer translation:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." (NRSV)

More on predestination here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/topical_resource.php?source=1&tid=3941

See also this thread: http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-15493-days0-orderasc-75.html

Finally, Isaiah 41:21-24 emphasizes foreknowledge as a distinguishing characteristic of deity.

"21 Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob.

22 Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.

23 Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.

24 Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you."

Sorry I couldn't give you more on this.  

If you special plead yourself out of your problems, by holding that these terms 'mean something beyond us" then you have no means of understanding what any of those terms mean, making all the terms incoherent.

So you cut the legs out from your own argument.

But oddly enough, I agree with you that this is what you must do... now, why not make the next step and embrace negative theology? 

You really don't know about the christian concept of original sin and salvation through grace?

You really don't follow the ending of the story?

Are you sure you're a christian?

If the first 3 books of genesis are internally contradictory, then the concept of original sin falls to pieces.

If original sin is rendered meaningless, then man is not in need of salvation through grace.

Then the 'need' for 'jesus' disapears.

If you wish to say "hey, I'm not a fundy" then on what do you base the need for salvation on? Your personal feel that this is so?

These are all ad hoc rationalizations thrust onto the story... attempts to make the story make sense, seeing as a literal reading leads to nonsense.

It takes a great deal of interpretation to turn this story into an allegory about learning morality as opposed to what it really is: the basis for original sin and salvation. Read your St. Paul.

todangst, I'm sorry if this post gets incoherent at times, I'm tired. If I'm unclear I'll try to further explain anything tomorrow. 

The various (and numerous) quotes you give me about predestination, I think, agree with what I had stated about viewing God more as "this is the way the world/universe is." I'm not sure if I can explain this correctly... God knows everything that is going to happen and he knows everything that has happened. As a being who does not exist as we exist (in time) having knowledge of the things that have not happened yet doesn't really seem to make sense. There is no distinction between past, present, and future for him. You'd have to just say that God "knows" these things. But that brings me back to my previous point, I don't think God "knows" in the same way that people do. The sort of "knowing" that God would do almost has to be metaphorical as God is a different being from humans.

On sin, salvation and morality: Isn't original sin and salvation an allegory for learning morality? Original sin means, and this is really simplifying it, that humans can and have a tendency to, at times, sin. We need to be saved from being sinful (being immoral) and we need teachings, wisdom, Jesus to help us.

If I'm making ad hoc rationalizations that I'm thrusting on the story, is all interpretation of literature completely absurd and not worth considering? 

splenda:

You need to read your sources and learn the fact that when you come to a forum tha tis based on debate and discussion, you need to know how to do that.  IMO, you done nothing but make unsubstantiated claims, find evidence that agrees with those claims (but not common sense), claim ignorance to the logical conclusion of everything you just set about arguing and lastly wasted alot of time while never actually answering a single post.  way to go. 

A sane response would be "these quotes utterly prove your point todangst. I stand corrected."

And the bible repeatedly tells you that this is because 'god' preordains everything.

Logic also tells you this: seeing as omnipotence and omniscience lead to perfect responsibility.

Your bible tells you that 'god' knows all of these things because he preordains them.

I can't take you seriously if you are just going to ignore citations from your own bible.

Clearly not. I again ask you to read your St. Paul to see if he felt it was an 'allegory for learning morality"

There's no 'if' involved. You are making ad hoc rationalizations... you're overturning the words of St. Paul, who if I recall correctly, has some weight when it comes to christianity.

What a ridiculous strawman. 

Either you can reinterpret the bible in contradiction to what the bible says, what St. Paul says, even in the face of contradicting the very foundation of christianity"

Or

ALL INTERPRETATION of ALL LITERATURE is completely dis-allowed.  This includes interpreting Kafka, or Camus.....  Shakespeare, poetry... haikus?  Hallmark birthday cards?

Do I really need to tell you that this is a strawman of the situation? 

The point here is this: if you reinterpret the garden story in a desparate ad hoc attempt to avoid the internal contradictions, then you contradict St. Paul.

I think the comment about a Chistian Taliban is unfounded.

I heard a preacher condoning the execution of adulterers and homosexuals.

What I do see happening, is that the far right and the far left keep pushing each other farther apart.

I dont care. I'm a political centrist.

That's why I think we need address the distrust that is growing, which fuels claims like "replace it with a Christian Taliban." I understand your point with that, which is like my point of using the Holocaust. So, you saying that is fine, at least now we can talk about t and allay fears.

Allay fears? We should be terrified! At least you should. I dont care. I'm not American. But if you care about your freedom, you'll keep a watchful eye on these fuckers. Historically, whenever religion gains political power, the results are ghastly beyond belief.

agree, the left pushes, the right pushes back and vice versa. Next thing you know, the two are so separated and far apart that they hardly know each other any more. Distrust keeps growing and growing with regards to the others motives. But if we sat down and laid the motives out on the table, I think we would see that they are pretty much the same...the desire to make this a better country and world. So then, how can we accomplish that together?

I dont care. Im a political centrist. Also, the far-right is not trying to make a better world. They are trying to impose religious tyranny.

Muslims countries aren't exactly favorable to Christians either...so now, at least, I know we are in the same boat as far as that is concerned.

Yes.

I'm not part of the far right, but being part of the right, I probably have more regular exposure to it, and I can say that never, absolutely never, have I heard anyone talk about removing citizens rights to believe (or not believe) in God how they choose or, cutting off people's heads, killing people in the streets. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

Nah. They couldn't get away with that. There are some pesky laws. This is not Iran. However, what they are trying to do is put creationism in science classes, cut funding to scientific advancement, active promotion of the death penalty, you get the idea.

So, here's my fear about the far left...that they are going to turn the US (and world) into a ruined socialist/communist state. Or, the left is going to just stick their heads in the sand about this Muslim extremist problem and be so utterly pacifist that the Muslims take over while they're still whining about war being so horrible and wrong. Well, when someone declares war on you, you better fight them, people, or else the other side is going to win. We didn't ask for the war, they have brought it upon us.

Agreed. I don't like the far left either. Fuck them. If it were up to me, I would just fly a plane from Damscus to Riyadh and toss nukes out the window until the whole middle east was fried (just kidding).

The fact that you focus only on the bad things about religion makes your view very unbalanced in my opinion. You view of religion is too simplistic because you are not even willing to consider the good that is done, every day, because of religion.

Ever heard the quote by steve weinberg. "With or without religion, you'd have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion". The inherent theology upon which monotheism in particular is based is founded on exclusivism and hate. If religion suddenly disappeared, people would still be charitable and kind, and bad people would still commit crime. But there would be no faith-based violence, there would be no theocracies, no jurisprudence barbarism, no teaching of exclusivist hate to impressionable children, no arrogant piety. Fact is, religion does do good things. But it is people who are religious doing good things. The actual social structure of religion is inherently evil. When we distill it down to the iniquity comparison, the world would be alot better without it, really.

What you are doing is pointing to a symptom of imperfect humanity. That is, in any given institution (including atheist communist governments) you are going to have those people who use doctrine for evil in order to gain power, money, or whatever. So, you propose putting a bandaid over a symptom you see, when the problem is actually in the human heart. If you eradicate "religion" you will have all the same problems you are having now, because...we are imperfect, and some among us will always fight, be greedy, unfair, desire power, etc.

Yes. That's what I said. But a significat source of evil in the world would be removed, and the overall amount of good in the world would not change.

You are all are always talking about me and my facts. Then you must practice what you preach and get your facts straight about Christians. Get to know them, go to their churches...actually spend time in the community...not just a day, and develop a more balanced accurate picture of them. That is what I am here doing regarding atheism.

I'm not saying they aren't nice people (most of them), I'm just saying that your complaints that I dislike Christianity as the majority is unfounded. That is not my reason for my criticism.

As I stated above, I do not believe you practice what you preach. And, as a result, I think you become angry with me before I even say a word because you think you "know" what I will say, what my motives are, etc. You also become angry with me because I don't process the world as you do and use logic as the end-all be-all measure of truth.

No, no, no. you misunderstand. I didn't say it was the end-all epistemology, I'm just saying that it is important to deciding truth. However, IMHO, when you have been outargued, you stand by this point. The only reason you stand by this point is because you have lost an argument, as least thus far as I have seen. If you enter a rational argument, expect to use logic.

I'm not saying logic is the only epistemology, however, it should be an important part of someone's worldveiw, and should not be left out. But in religion, you are expected to completely surrender this special human talent. That is why it is called "faith". Relying on logic only cannot construct a worldveiw, and you are twisting my words by implying I said that. However, you use no logic, all you use are arguments from emotion (like right now). This makes people frustrated. If you recall your very first thread here, I recall this is exactly what you did. For your irrational faith, you have surrendered the most remarkable of human gifts: The ability to reason.

Tell you what, I'm going to repost the thing I wrote on the first page in response to you.

Here

I think that God is a projection of the human mind because He has a human-like personality (as described in the bible)

Saying that God is a projection of the human mind is a rather odd thing for a theist to say because that essentially means that we created him, or we made him up. That is the definition of projectionalism. I find it difficult to grasp the logic that God has a human-like mind because my understanding of the contradiction of "theological epistemology" is that God is not physical ie not composed of matter but rather "spirit" whatever that means. However, to the very best of my knowledge about neurology, and "emotion" or "personality" or any sentience whatsoever has a very first requisite of being based on an information processing machine. In humans, this machine is the parallel computing function of 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion ions that flow between them. The most basic information processor (presumably God would be the ultimate information processer as he is omniscient) would at very least be based on thermal gradient distribution of parallel-aligned protons and electrons. But God does not even have that, as theology describes God as an animus, or a "vital force". This is contradictory and incoherent.

Once again, I think your heavy reliance on logic is making your viewpoints unbalanced. I stand by my comment about you worshipping logic.

I must point out the irony when I state that "worshipping logic" is a logical contradiction and a fallacy, because the inherent basis of logic is rational chains of reason. Even for you to arrive at that conclusion, you would have to use a chain of reason. There is no way out of this. So deep is it encoded into human neurology, that there is no escaping it. Surely in something as important as the existence of God, calling logic to question it would be of utmost importance. Jefferson said the same:

-Fix reason in her seat and call her wisdom to every tribunal, for if there was a God, he would surely approve more of REASON than of blind faith.

In the Christian view, we have an innate need for God, which I have expressed on this thread.

That does not change the fact that God is an ontologically incoherent concept.

And if you don't fill it with God, you will fill it with something. Many of you have chosen to fill it with logic, and tell me...I feel content and happy. I have no doubt you do, but I feel you are happy as result of an idol you are using to replace your hearts calling for God. You have ignored God's calling to a point where you no longer recognize it.

OK. This is the condescinding nonsense which pisses people off. I use logic because it is very important. If you have a worldview, it should be based on reason. It's how we learn about things.

I have not ignored God's calling. Do not be such an idiot. I have studied philosphy for years and come to the conclusion that God does not exist. The concept has no meaning. It's epistemology is broken, it's ontology is a contradition. Not only is there no evidence for the entity, but deductively

This is the critical difference. Having other things in your life besides logic is called alogic. Everyone is partially alogical. This is where your notion of worship is pure idiocy, and demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing about basic epistemology.

However, there is a difference between alogical (devoid of logic) and illogical (logically impossible).

There is nothing wrong with alogic, but illogic (like religion) is highly irrational. For example,

This is the difference. Epistemilogically, other methods than logic can be used, however, the fact still remains that if something is a logical contradiction (illogical), it does not exist, like a square circle or 2+2=5. That is one of the most basic axioms of reality. Even a child can understand it.

Now put yourself in my position. We aren't talking about alogic, like love of books and art etc. I love these things too for no logical reasons. You are attempting something else. YOu are attempting to make an argument from emotion that 2+2=5. You cannot make a logical argment for this because it is illogical, and you get angry about it.

get it now? 

Once again, your love of logic, and if I do not love it the way you do, I am delusional.

You've never picked up the dictionary. I have plenty of alogical beliefs. However, there should not be illogic in someone's worldview, otherwise it is silly.

I am really getting the feeling you keep stating this because you know that you have no ontological justification for your beleif.

Please stop judging me by saying I am whining. I am disagreeing with you. Will you grant me that right? Normal everyday Muslims do not think I am delusional. They think you are wrong, however, in your conclusions about God.

Well, if you want me to stop sating you are whining, IMHO you should stop whining. I don't think you are delusional because you believe in God. As a scientist, I always pay homage to the giants whose shoulders I stand on, and that includes some great theologians. They were not delusional men, but they were wrong. I think you are delusional because of your argumentative style.

Again, I have said and will say it again, I use many tools in coming to conclusions. Logic is just one of them

As of yet I have hitherto not seen this. When you are logically outargued, you tend to do an about-face and whine about overuse of logic, which is odd because you entered a logical argument! This is what makes people angry. That is all I can say about why people on the forum get annoyed at you. It is just my observation.

I also observe my emotions, observe patterns in human nature, allow my creating mind to speculate. All you use is logic logic logic. That is illogical to me and you will not see me adopting that approach.

See above.

Sighhh....

The vast majority of those stories about atheists converting are urban legends. And there is something VERY wrong with teaching ID in a biology class. It's not the slightest bit scientific! Teaching ID in a Biology class would be like teaching Alchemy in a Chemistry class , Astrology in an Astronomy class or the "alternate theory" of the stork in a medical school class about birthing babies. Any scientist worthy of the title does believe in evolution. I am so FUCKING sick of people who know absolutely nothing about science trying to refute it! You do know there are several actual scientists in this very thread laughing at you right now?

I agree about intelligent design not being taught in biology class. There is nothing scientific about ID. And even as a Christian non-scientist (kind of redundant I know), I think ID doesn't make much sense. I may be alone here, but I think that evolution and faith can go hand in hand. Does any Theist know what creation would look like? It would make sense to me to say that God created the earth and all us little creatures on it using evolution. It is like art. When an artist starts a painting, the color seems all wrong and nothing has taken shape. Through the evolution of the painting, it changes and morphs, becoming first one thing, then another. The end result is "Waterlilies." I wish that Christians would quit putting God in a box and saying that evolution couldn't have happened. First of all (unless I am severly mistaken) there is a lot of scientific evidence to back up evolution. Second of all, why couldn't God have done it that way? God never gave any of us a play by play of every step he took in Creation. None of us can say it didn't happen with any kind of evidence (and if anyone brings the freaking banana thing into this as evidence that evolution didn't happen I'll cry for the stupidity of it). Evolution belongs in the science class as it is... SCIENCE. ID is religion based. Unless you are teaching in a religious school such as David Lipscomb or Freed Hardeman (two Church of Christ schools in Tennessee), you do not have the CONSTITUTIONAL right, let alone the educational right, to be teaching religion in science. Not to mention it doesn't make a damn bit of sense to mix the two like that.

no eveyone knows that since I ate a calzone the other day the FSM has transubstantiated into the Flying Calzone Moster.  Of course the down side is that now all FCM'ers have to self-flagellate by burning the roof of their mouth with napalm-hot cheese for the sins of all mankind.

Not bad for an English Major....

I have issue when people say, God must not exist because I can’t explain Him.

What! I say God must not exist because the concept is a total ontological contradiction. I couldn't care less if you could explain him, it would not change that fact.

I discussed earlier in this thread how I believe the human need for God, and the ability of worshipping God to fill that need is non-material evidence for Him.

There is no need to worship God and even if there was, this has no bearing on the truth value of the statement. And what is the non-material evidence for God. Seems like a contradictory statement to me, because all epistemology is founded to some degree on material. Immaterial is a broken concept.

I have tried to fill that need with other things, and in the long run, thru trial and error, I have found that none of those things are sustainable for me.

This does not change any of the facts.

Other non-material evidence for God is the human tendency to turn to him when they are at their lowest state of desparation.

Actually, I study a field of neurology called Nuerotheology, where scientists use angiogramic hemodynamics to pinpoint the exact areas of the brain associated with God and religion. It's a very exciting field. This is not evidence for God, this is a circular-style Argumentum ad consequentiam.

I talked about the African slaves in America, how many of them became Christians, how they wrote beautiful songs, because the worship of God sustained them…allowed them to live honorable lives despite the horrible situation they were in and despite the evil that was being committed on them.

I would understand that need if I were in their situation. But unfortunately, you really are shying away from the facts. This is exactly what I am talking about. You are responding to a deductive argument with an appeal to emotion. I'm sorry, but you have demonstrated it every single time.

Ironically, in the middle of this evil, the goodness of God was palpable to them. He was their sustainer. Why is it, that when people find themselves in comfortable homes, when their bellies are well-fed, when they are well-educated, that, suddenly, they don’t need God anymore.

I must protest this condescending nonsense. You really are trying to escape the obvious aren't you. You have been hopelessly outargued and you turn to an emotional appeal. Please stick to the argument, and not go off on irrelevant tangents. See my signature (from South Park)

Other possible evidence for God is NDE’s. The argument against them is that it is hallucination… So who is willing to prove that? Who is going to prove that beyond a doubt? Who’s going to be willing to temporarily kill themselves for science? So, for now the hallucination stuff is speculation. Is it logical for me to accept their conclusion? Or is it logical for me to say…hmmm…I don’t know. Perhaps it’s hallucination, perhaps there is something to it.

This is a very circular form of reasoning. If I have just shown deductively (like above) that God is impossible, it is best to accept what science tells us about NDEs. We are zeroing in on them,

As to religious experience, we have large neurological focus on that, and have established the link between immunological response and physical health (has to do with metabolic activiation of T-Cell lymphocytes. Religious experiences set up another false dichotomy anyway because Muslims see Allah, Hindus see Krishna, (Muhammed saw Jibreel, Christians see Jesus etc. I've never heard of a trans-religious experience.

Neurological studies into NDEs have confirmed what we alrady should have known. the apoptosis and cellular transduction of the brain shutting down produces hallucinatory effects. The storms of transduction molecules from bursting neurons produces a cascading effect which causes intense audiovisual hallucinations, much similiar to taking drugs. The intense change in the VGIC (Voltage gated ion channell) across the neuro-membranes has the identical effect of an acid trip or any other hallucinogen.

To postulate NDEs as being due to a "soul" is incoherent because the notion of vitalism is not coherent.

And if I grant that there is perhaps something to it, is it not logical for me to figure out what I should do for my own eternal self-preservation?

What is that supposed to mean?

So given that the things above point to a possibility of God, then maybe there is a God.

You would have to justify the possibility in light of the contradiction I raised. I have not seen you do this.

Like I said above, you can logic puzzle me to death… It’s not going to work.

Do you understand why everyone is pissed off at you now? Get the difference between alogic and illogic through your very thick skull: the fundamental axiom of reality dictates that illogical concepts do not exist. Repeat it after me! *bangs head on wall*.

And I'll be expecting a real argument this time around.

see above.

See above

For the last time, I am not whining. I think you are wrong in your belief that God is not a possibility. So, stop whining about me “whining”.

THEN JUSTIFY IT. Please, I'm waiting on your justification. So far, all you've done is back into a corner or make circular appeals to emotion when you have been outargued.

I simply am not impressed by your arguments.

Then present counterarguments instead of circular appeals to emotion or one sentence diatribes. This is an extremely irritating excercise.