Are these healthy beliefs?

Are these healthy beliefs?

If you are referring to the premise that  humans are offensive to Yahweh because we are evil sinners - I can state from personal experience that I find this very unhealthy.  

I never really believed in Santa Claus.  I did not teach my children to believe in Santa Claus because I found it creepy to teach them that a mythical being was watching their every move and judging their worthiness to receive presents on Christ's birthday.

However, I did not find it creepy at all to teach my children that Yahweh was watching their every move and judging their every thought because I had lived all of my life accepting that my existence was owed to Yahweh because my birth was part of his eternal "plan".  I only had to "believe",  and obey, forgive and pray for abusive men so I could escape eternal damnation.

Are these healthy beliefs?

There is nothing mentally healthy about this. This is gaslighting to a new extreme.

I am befuddled that mortal man who is gods creation can trample on a supposed omnipotent and omniscient deity.  I would have to be able to turn off my frontal contract to even consider this as possible.  His own long pauses hint to me that even he doesn't believe it and is starting to question his claims.

If this wasn't protected by the First Amendment teaching this to a child would be abuse. 

 I was subject to both physical, and emotional abuse from a very religious mother and just listening to this makes me shake. I had to turn it off before it triggered a flashback. 

Dear Friend Episette: It pains me to hear of your childhood experiences.

No child should be abused in any way shape or form.

Through site private mail, then personal secure email know I wil be here for you for any sup[port you need, seek and want.

That all  communication remains in confidence.

That your values and views like you as a person will be respected and valued.

I am always here and available to and for you and yours.

Peace (Including Inner Peace and Harmony) and Abundant Blessings to You and Yours Always. 

Enoch.

I was subject to both physical, and emotional abuse from a very religious mother and just listening to this makes me shake. I had to turn it off before it triggered a flashback.

Much like, I presume, the fear these church members live under on a daily basis because of their beliefs.   Imagine truly believing that the most powerful entity possible is constantly watching what you do and could (and might) at any moment sentence you to eternal, literal Hell?

Note:   the caller expressed the concern of the parents who fear that God will damn their children for watching this atheist broadcast.

Imagine truly believing that the most powerful entity possible is constantly watching what you do and could (and might) at any moment sentence you to eternal, literal Hell?

Or, misspending ones only life in self loathing and personal denial in anticipation of an imaginary afterlife?

Imagine the waning of an entire life deprived of personal fulfillment and physical love in fealty to a myth...

The consequences of such revelations would be so devastating as to explain delusional breaks from reality.

Imagine truly believing that the most powerful entity possible is constantly watching what you do and could (and might) at any moment sentence you to eternal, literal Hell?

I don't have to imagine it.  I lived it.  I had nightmares about being stalked by Satan and actually being in Hell.

Hell was not intensely painful - just uncomfortably sultry.  Everything was void of color, but held the promise of color only because in my memory I knew there should be color.

I was on a bus with others on an endless trip to nowhere with scenery that never varied or changed.  

I remember feeling an intense yearning for just one cool breeze, but a knowledge that it would never happen.

Hell is a place of yearning for the simple pleasures of life that are so easy to take for granted until they are taken away.

I have rarely taken the simple pleasures of life for granted. 

Note:   the caller expressed the concern of the parents who fear that God will damn their children for watching this atheist broadcast.

The logical response for such parents should be to drown their children while they're still innocent and uncorrupted by the intertubes, thus saving their eternal "soul"......whatever that is.

I seem to recall that has been done.

Imagine truly believing that the most powerful entity possible is constantly watching what you do and could (and might) at any moment sentence you to eternal, literal Hell?

I was afraid to go home most days because I knew that I wasn't safe and depending on how her day went I would be crumpled on the floor begging her to stop hitting me with shoes, leather belts yardsticks and wooden spoons.  I much preferred to go to the library where I was safe and had books to read.  She claims to this day that a DR told her to do it, but I find that hard to believe.

Hugs to you, epistte.  No child should be subjected to that.

No child should be subjected to that.

Thanks for that support. I'm crying as I write this. 

Most people think that she is a saint because was a nurse and very active in the church.

I thought that it was normal behavior until maybe 10 years ago when a psychologist diagnosed me with Complex PTSD. Before then I was told I just had a severe anxiety disorder.

IMHO, Hell is what we make for ourselves here on earth. The extent of the trials and tribulations that we suffer during our own lifetime here on earth and how we either learn from them and make a concerted effort to try and do better, or simply give into them and let them define who we are and how we live our life, is what determines where our next eternal journey will take us. 

I realize that this thinking is not in keeping with the Christian religion teaching, but, I am not a Christian. My belief is that of my ancient Cherokee ancestors, and I do not live in fear of the Creator, but, in His love and understanding that He did not make us perfect, and we are not judged by how many times we fail, but, how many times we make an effort to learn from our mistakes and strive to do better. 

Just my own thoughts.

Thanks Lenny'. It means more than you know.

Sometimes words just can't suffice...

IMHO, Hell is what we make for ourselves here on earth.

I discovered that in my 20s. We force ourselves to live through hell for various reasons. Death might be the most pleasurable action that we will ever know because we are able to let go. 

Imagine the waning of an entire life deprived of personal fulfillment and physical love in fealty to a myth...

I have often wondered if that explained some of their projection and hatred of others who are happy.  They want everyone to be as miserable as they are. They only let out their true feelings behind closed doors and on the dark corners of the internet where they are anonymous.

I thought that it was normal behavior until maybe 10 years ago when a psychologist diagnosed me with Complex PTSD. Before then I was told I just had a severe anxiety disorder.

i sincerely hope you are on the road to being able to successfully deal with that horrible traumatic situation you were subjected to as a child and that you are healing from it.  

i sincerely hope you are on the road to being able to successfully deal with that horrible traumatic situation you were subjected to as a child and that you are healing from it.

Thank you for caring. I have good days and some that aren't so good.

I have good days and some that aren't so good.

Epistte, people like you should not have bad days. Only good! At least having discussions with you always makes for a good day for me. 

Epistte, people like you should not have bad days. Only good! At least having discussions with you always makes for a good day for me.

I only wish that the former was true. I'm glad that I make the day brighter for you. 

I only wish that the former was true. I'm glad that I make the day brighter for you.

i would dare say you make the day brighter for many people - even if you don't realize it. Please take care 

Death might be the most pleasurable action that we will ever know because we are able to let go.

Having lived in a verbally, emotionally and physically abusive marriage for many years, I thought that death would be more desirable than living. However, I could never find  a good enough reason to give up and take that way out.

Fortunately, the Creator was my strength and guiding light and I managed to survive, and find a new life. One where there was hope and I could be anyone I wanted to be if I was willing to work hard for it and make a better life.

I have learned to take control of my own life, and never give in to those who only wish me harm, those who try to intimidate, bully or make me feel inferior. And I like the person I have been able to become, and hang my head to no one who feels they are superior to me, or who is so insecure in their own life they try to make me feel I am unworthy of my life. 

Quote the Raven, "Nevermore."  (Edgar Allen Poe)

I should not have mentioned the situation. 

"I should not have mentioned the situation. "

Not true at all. Life's a b*tch, all that matters is how we choose to deal with it. What you experienced is abuse, and abuse in any form can seriously affect our lives and who we are. 

In spite of all that you have suffered, you have managed to define yourself, not let others define who you are. Take pride in that. It is not an easy thing to do.

(smile)

I should not have mentioned the situation.

I hope we haven't made you regret mentioning it, and I hope you know that we all hold you in admiration and offer our support if you need it.  If you'd rather not discuss it any further, just say the word.  I think we should all abide by what is best for you and your recovery, and you're a better judge of that than we are.

The "fundamental" problem is the literal belief in the Bible. So many things in the Bible are obviously not literally true, yet belief in it as literal persists.  

We talk about 'reformation' as it related to the Catholic Church or Judaism or even hopefully Islam at some point . We should also hope for reformation for fundamentalist Christian sects, because they need it. 

The "fundamental" problem is the literal belief in the Bible.

I agree, but I think it is more than that - the problem is absolute belief simply because another human being said so.   Unsubstantiated claims should not be accepted as truth.   The more extreme the claim the more we should engage our critical thinking faculties.

The bible isn't literal?  Ok, then I have no problem with it at all.  If the bible is pure metaphor, it's a great literary work with many life lessons and thought provoking passages.  Obviously the creation myth is exactly that, there was no flood, language was not created at the tower of Babel, etc, etc, etc.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that  a supernatural realm exists at all, much less that a supreme creator of the universe resides there.  The real kicker is that even if I give theists BOTH of those incredible leaps of faith, it still, in NO WAY validates any of man's religions, or suggests in any way that humans possess some sort of dual existence and enter this realm upon death.  It is nothing but pure Peter Pan fantasy, and childish, wishful thinking.

etc, etc, etc

My fave has always the Jonah and the whale story.  Lol I mean anyone with a basic knowledge of anatomy knows that 3 days in a stomach is not survivable.

Obviously the creation myth is exactly that, there was no flood, language was not created at the tower of Babel, etc, etc, etc.

The Bible as a moral parable is the only way that it can be read with any sort of reason. If you claim that the bible is the literal word of god you must be able to turn off any logical thought process to even begin to accept it. 

We know for a fact that the Bible isn't the literal word of god because it cannot possibly be due to the fact that it was written by an assembled into the desired teachings by mortal man.  There are at minimum 4 bother gospels that were not deemed to be worthy of inclusion.  For the Bible to be the word of god with would have required it to drop out of the sky and be found on Mt Saini but not even the bible claims that to be true. 

Religious believers have permitted themselves to be led down an illogical rabbit hole of alternate religious reality by ministers and their own families. They can get out of that same hole by beginning to think for themselves but when you have spent your entire life thinking this way and are surrounded by like-minded family and friends it is very difficult if not impossible to do so.  I never believed a word of it because it was utterly insane to me, even as a child.  I didn't like fiction then and I still do not enjoy reading fiction.

One of my earliest memories at mass was sitting in the pews looking at the grown-ups around me and wondering if people really believed this nonsense or where they also here because they were forced to do so.

 The only way that I could make myself go to mass after I was 18 was because I felt that I would have a better week if I suffered through mass as an act of sacrifice and penance. That lasted maybe a year until I wrote the letter to the priest asking that my name is removed from the list of believers. It was due to various church scandals and such that made my leaving easier when the church proved that they were not a pillar of morality. 

To be honest, I don't think my parents cared for it, they just went because it was the thing to do.

My sisters and I used to slip into the vestibule of the church after mass had already started to grab a copy of the church bulletin, which was a form of proof that we went to church, without actually going to church.  We'd drive around for an hour and occasionally stop somewhere and get pastry before going home. 

 We got busted doing that because my father's friends were often the ushers and would rat us out to our parents.  DAMN!

When I was young I asked my Sunday School teacher what they fed the lions?  If they only had 2 of all animals the antelopes wouldn't have made it 40 days.  I was told to trust in God.

First I want to say I am sorry that you went through all the abuse that I read above. I hope you will be at peace some day.

I've gotten to the point where I can talk about most of what happened and not have flashbacks at night.  I was told by a psychologist that she was surprised that I am still alive after what I experienced. 

Getting away from my family permanently might be what it takes for me to fully recover. I should be safe around them but I am at most risk because of those that I most share DNA with. 

the antelopes wouldn't have made it 40 days.  I was told to trust in God.

yep, those annoying reality questions.....

If they only had 2 of all animals the antelopes wouldn't have made it 40 days.

I always asked too many questions to the nuns in CCD when they told me to either trust in God or that God works in mysterious ways if I would just believe.

That nun wrote so many letters to my mom that I would have sworn that they were pen pals.

I still ask to many questions for some people.  

I was lucky. I didn't have nuns, just laywomen telling little girls that God had our husbands all picked out for us.  

I still ask to many questions for some people.

I'd say that's THEIR problem. Educating yourself involves asking questions. Not educating yourself is stupid, therefore not asking questions is too.

Intelligent people want and need to know. Imbeciles dont care and will believe in anything.

Congratulations on being an intelligent human. Too bad we all aren't.

lol

Congratulations on being an intelligent human. Too bad we all aren't.

I have learned to accept that not all people want to know everything.  Some people enjoy staying in the dark & following blindly.  I cannot do it, never could.  

Some people enjoy staying in the dark & following blindly.

LOL they  do say "Ignorance is bliss." I never believed that one either though...lol

I was lucky. I didn't have nuns, just laywomen telling little girls that God had our husbands all picked out for us.

We had two nuns, Sister Eleanor and Sister Mary. Sister Elanor was a very severe woman who looked like a linebacker in a habit. I could swear that she had a pointer that could break the sound barrier.

Our CCD teachers in middle school and high school were often lay couples

I often wondered what they were hiding under those habits.  In high school (public) the church I attended didn't have nuns either.  The convent had been turned into a juvenile delinquent facility.  My hubby's church still had nuns, but they didn't wear habits anymore.  By the time my kids were in school all the nuns were gone and that convent had turned into a hospice facility.     

I actually taught 2nd grade CCD for 5 years.  I was unorthodox and surprised they kept asking me back.  I do feel guilty pushing the religion on my children.

LOL they  do say "Ignorance is bliss." I never believed that one either though...lol

I don't believe that either.  

The YEC organization Answers in Genesis says that back then no animals were carnivorous.    Imagine, vegetarian lions.

They have an 'answer' for anything.    (These are the folks who hold that Noah had baby dinosaurs on the ark too.)

The YEC organization Answers in Genesis says that back then no animals were carnivorous.

Holy sheepdip. 

 Were boa constrictors also vegetarians? I can't wait to see a painting at the Bible museum of a boa strangling a strawberry before consuming it. 

I know, but people just nod their heads and note that it must be right because Ken Ham says so.

Ken Ham

Ken Ham is either a brilliant conman who knows how to fleece idiots of their last dime, or he is the dumbest person to inhabit human DNA.

He is, IMO, a very savvy businessman.   He picked his market well and does a superb job of catering to its needs.

His is also, IMO, a con-man.

Ken Ham is either a brilliant conman who knows how to fleece idiots of their last dime, or he is the dumbest person to inhabit human DNA.

I'd say both.

no animals were carnivorous

Which leads to the next obvious question of how did Noah store all the provisions for 40 days of feed. One elephant alone would need 400lbs a day or 16,000lbs for the duration of the trip

Plus the animals give back a processed subset of that which they consumed.   Would require quite a crew just to deal with the sanitary issues.

I still ask to many questions for some people

so do i !! it definitely drives some people crazy, that they feel the need to try to denigrate me for "attacking" their faith, when in reality i'm just... asking questions ! it seems hard for some people to admit they just simply don't have the answers or they don't really know, plus i have found that many can't explain why they still believe regardless.

when in reality i'm just... asking questions

But, you see.....you are supposed to simply comply with their own religious beliefs and give consummate devotion to their own beliefs. Asking a question is tantamount to denying God.

But, you see.....you are supposed to simply comply with their own religious beliefs and give consummate devotion to their own beliefs. Asking a question is tantamount to denying God.

that's exactly the message they seem to be communicating - especially when i'm told that they aren't "responsible" for explaining anything to me (which usually means they can't explain it and that is an uncomfortable realization for them too) and i should just "have faith" or just "trust" them and "believe". It's ironic that many (not all) religious people demand that you lock-step with their thoughts and beliefs or else.

I have never asked anyone for their devotion to my God,  You have your own beliefs.....sounds good to me.  As a matter of fact. I have never seen that happen on NT. 

I think I can speak for all the Christians on NT.....we don't care what you believe. 

Actually I think most people on either side of this debate feel the same way.   It’s only the extremists that seem to have a need to denigrate the other side.

Thankfully they are a minority, albeit a very loud, obnoxious minority.

I can't wait to see a painting at the Bible museum of a boa strangling a strawberry before consuming it.

That got me right in the funny bone.

It’s only the extremists that

put up statues to their god on public property.

try to force their creation myth into public schools.

draw attention to themselves and their religious beliefs in the public square.

And cry "hatred and intolerance" when nonbelievers ask them for proof of the existence of that which they would try to force into our lives.

Bitch about statues put up on public property.

try to force others beliefs of creation completely from the public 

draw attention to themselves and their anti-religious beliefs in the public square

spew hate and intolerance towards those who are not of like mind in places like NT

Yep, that about sums up the left leaning extremist.

Now that is something to imagine.

My tax dollars should not be supporting religious adornments.

My tax dollars should not be used to teach myth as reality.

I have no problem with anybody who wants to follow their religion doing so, as long as they confine their expectations to themselves and don't harm others for religious reasons.  That's not "anti-religion", unless you would like for the description of religious belief to be expanded to include "anti-reason and anti-knowledge".

Not buying in to mythology, nor wishing to be forced by law to support it through taxes, is not "intolerance" nor "hate".  I notice that many of those who would teach creationism in schools would have strokes at the thought of publicly-supported madrassas.  Are they "anti-religion"?

Bitch about statues put up on public property.

Why do some Christians have a need to build monuments to Yahweh on public property?  Yahweh doesn't need or want or them.  Yeshua doesn't need or want them.  So why do some Christians have this need?

try to force others beliefs of creation completely from the public

Do Christians want all creation myths taught in public school in a philosophy class?

There is zero scientific evidence to support a religion's creation myth.  This includes the Christian one.  Science class is about teaching science - not religious doctrine.

draw attention to themselves and their anti-religious beliefs in the public square

How? 

Is it by not demanding everyone in hearing distance not listen to us praise our non deity?

Is it by not wearing religious symbols?

Is it by just going about our daily lives as if there was not a mythical being that needed constant praise, adoration and money?

spew hate and intolerance towards those who are not of like mind in places like NT

I have read somewhere that a person is likely to reap what they sow.  Some people call it Karma.  

In any event, people, from the top to the bottom of the Christian hierarchy, have tortured and killed people who are not of like mind throughout the religion's history.  Trying to frame this as a meek, mild, loving religion all about "saving" worthless sinners just isn't going to work with people who know the religion's history.  INTOLERANCE of others is what the Christian religion is all about.  That is one of the reasons that there are 30,000 sects of the Christian religion.  30,000 sects instead of 1.

Do Christians want all creation myths taught in public school in a philosophy class?

I think they should teach the Atum myth.

Bitch about statues put up on public property.

The only ones bitching are the religious individuals complaining when their statues are taken down. If they want to put up their statues so badly, they can put them up on their own private property.

try to force others beliefs of creation completely from the public

Why do silly creation beliefs need to be in the public to begin with?

draw attention to themselves and their anti-religious beliefs in the public square

You meal like how theists do that themselves when they attempt to put up their statues or spew their religious nonsense in the public arena?

spew hate and intolerance towards those who are not of like mind in places like NT

More like cry persecution or play the victim when they're beliefs or actions are called out and challenged.

Yep, that about sums up the left leaning extremist.

And that asinine post sums up your lack of understanding of such issues as well as having little relevance to the discussion.

"I think I can speak for all the Christians on NT.....we don't care what you believe."

Then why do the oh so pious Christians here on NT go to such extremes to try to prove their own belief is the only true belief, and anyone who does not fall in lock step with their own beliefs are going to Hell? 

There are endless  articles and seeds posted here on NT that do nothing but generate hate toward those who do not believe the same way the Christians do. If they don't care what others think, then why do they continue to demean and denigrate those who are non-believers, or who believe in a different religion.

While you yourself may not care what others believe, obviously, that does not relate to all Christians here on NT.

That got me right in the funny bone.

I wrote that at 2:00am. I had never read anything as absurd as when TiG explained that the YECs claim that lions were vegetarians on the ark. The idea of a vegetarian boa strangling a strawberry was the first thing that came to my mind.

Then why do the oh so pious Christians here on NT go to such extremes to try to prove their own belief is the only true belief, and anyone who does not fall in lock step with their own beliefs are going to Hell?

I would find it useful if someone just attempted to make an evidence-based case for these beliefs.   Proof is inconceivable so I do not expect anything so grand.

What usually happens is claims are made with the pseudo-justification of 'based on faith'.  No evidence, no reason in most cases.  Sometimes scripture appears (pointless since one would first have to establish the Bible as divine), sometimes notes on heathen immorality, damnation appear.   That kind of cliche commentary.   Ultimately complaints are registered when the unsubstantiated based-only-on-faith claims are challenged.

I just find it funny that Christians promote their own belief as the only way to worship. There are many types of religious beliefs that are far older than the Christian religion, and it sounds like all those human beings who, in their own way, worshiped a Supreme Being, or God, are condemned to eternal damnation because their religious beliefs don't count. Only those who became Christians will ever be able to get into Heaven. 

Personally, I don't believe that for one second. I don't know what God they believe in, but, it sure is not the in keeping with the loving and forgiving God they say He is. 

My tax dollars get spent on many things “I” don’t “agree” with.     I suppose I could come on here and bitch endlessly about that ...... but I have better things to do.

I don’t.

And yet scientists can not explain how life came to be.    Theorize.... yes but not explain with absolute scientific certainty..

That must be vexing for you.

How?

i didn’t make the original comment.    I think you did ....right?

Is it by not demanding everyone in hearing distance not listen to us praise our non deity?

Hey, knock yourself out.   Few if any Christians I know do that, including myself.

Is it by not wearing religious symbols?

Again, knock yourself out.    No skin off my nose

Is it by just going about our daily lives as if there was not a mythical being that needed constant praise, adoration and money?

 ...... see above.    No one cares .... at least most of us

My mojo is rising ... how about yours?

And yet scientists can not explain how life came to be.

There are a great many things that science cannot explain.   That is the consequence of abiding by a formal, objective system based on solid evidence.   Anyone can dream up an explanation if there is no requirement for a factual, reasoned foundation.

Exactly and yet the creation of “life” is not a myth. 

My tax dollars get spent on many things “I” don’t “agree” with.

In violation of the First Amendment?

Probably not.

My tax dollars get spent on many things “I” don’t “agree” with. I suppose I could come on here and bitch endlessly about that ...... but I have better things to do.

If tax dollars get spent on religious nonsense, then that is a violation of the Constitution, and that is something to legitimately bitch about.

And yet scientists can not explain how life came to be. Theorize.... yes but not explain with absolute scientific certainty..

Scientists  have conducted experiments to determine how life originated. While few things in science is certain, it is a far better and rational explanation, backed with evidence, than say religious dogma which just makes things up.

Exactly and yet the creation of “life” is not a myth.

No, just some of the religious stories about "creation" is.

Exactly and yet the creation of “life” is not a myth.

That is simply a claim.   Life exists, few would dispute that.   But to claim a creator is an entirely different matter.   So how was life 'created'?   If you are going to cite the Bible then you will first have to establish the Bible as a credible source commensurate with your claim.   Merely asserting the Bible as divine accomplishes nothing - anyone can assert anything - unsupported assertions are worthless.

That is simply a claim

 No its not.    Do you have absolute scientific proof of how life began?     No?      Then by your logic, it must be a myth.

Exactly and yet the creation of “life” is not a myth.

But, Yahweh,  the creator, is as mythical as all of the other tens of thousands of gods that men have created, worshipped and discarded throughout our history.

There are older gods than Yahweh.  That is why Yahweh was a "jealous" god of all the other gods that man had created before they got around to creating Yahweh.

According to the Bible, Yahweh destroyed all of our species on Earth except for the handful on Noah's ark.  After the Great Flood, there was not one living soul on Earth that did not believe in and worship Yahweh.  After the Great Flood, the origins of our species should all share the same DNA of Noah's family because according to the Bible, every single person alive has to be a descendant of Noah.  

So after the Flood, we have one family that is responsible for breeding our entire human species.  Throwing out the obvious issue with inbreeding, why doesn't everyone have the same skin color as Noah and his family?

No its not.

Yes, it is.  How does your religion's claim of creation have more validity than any other religion's claim of creation?

very good points

No its not.

Unless you can produce proof or evidence to support claims, especially religious based ones, then a (empty) claim is all it is, with no shred of validity.

Do you have absolute scientific proof of how life began? No? Then by your logic, it must be a myth.

Logic clearly eludes you here. You seem to be overlooking the fact that we do have evidence to support scientific based claims. There is no evidence to support religious based claims (especially since there are many different stories). Hence, they are myths.

Replied at 10 .

Bitch about statues put up on public property.

try to force others beliefs of creation completely from the public 

It must be tough to be superstitious and not have one's superstitions endorsed and propped up by the state.

Perhaps Saudi Arabia or Russia would be a better fit for you?

Hilarious.    I served during the Cold War.    Russians have always been an enemy of the US  in my time.    Including now so that’s just ridiculous nonsense you’re suggesting there so try again.

That said, perhaps Venezuela would be a better fit for you.    Well maybe not.    They are mostly Christians there as well.   Nearly 100%

Wrong on superstitious part as well, well ...... not on the baseball field but that’s about it.   Bad luck to step on the chalked base path lines ...... 

Wrong, wrong, wrong.    SOSDD for you.

Observation :   These folks believe what their preacher tells them.   They accept ( apparently without even normal question ) the interpretations provided by this sole human being.

Is it healthy for a person to accept something as truth simply because some other person (or persons or book) said it is so?:

• This preacher has his flock believing in a spiteful, ever-watching God who will doom you to eternal torture in a literal Hell if you do not conduct your life per the preacher's interpretations.
• Christian Scientists will attempt to heal themselves (or their dependents) through prayer and not necessarily seek proper medical treatment.   
• Jehovah Witnesses go one step further and absolutely refuse blood transfusions due strictly to biblical interpretation.
• Religious cults (e.g. Heaven's Gate ) illustrate -in the extreme- the problem of yielding one's critical thinking to another.   In this case the faithful committed suicide under the belief that Earth was being recycled and catching the spacecraft following Halley's comet would save their souls.   
• Almost routine (it would seem) martyrs commit suicide / murder (for political reasons) but emboldened and motivated by their religious belief that this is the will of Allah and they will be privileged in Heaven based on their murderous act.

In all cases (mild through extreme) we have human beings in 2018 acting as intellectual slaves to their religion.   The faithful suppress critical thinking and simply defer to unsubstantiated claims of another human being.

More and more, we see religions acting like cults. The absolutism of fundamentalism is frequently interpreted as "follow the leader at all costs". The pastor acts like he is the personal and omnipotent recipient of God's word. They demand absolute fealty. This is why people leave organized religions. It is almost like the aftermath of having an intervention.

This is why people leave organized religions.

Yet so many do not leave.   Certainly all the information is available to show that such beliefs should be questioned.   Staying must be a psychological phenomenon.   Fear of the unknown?   Unable to confront the finality of death?

Both, but also a healthy dose of self-loathing.  You have to be convinced that you're guilty of something to be convinced that you need redemption.

Staying must be a psychological phenomenon.

Staying is easier than leaving when they cannot think logically on their own. They are immobilized by fear of the unknown and social ostracism. 

I have long wondered if cult deprogramming would help these people regain their independence?

More and more, we see religions acting like cults

I dunno.  Are there more acting like this or are the ones (churches, groups and individuals) that do getting more publicity?

Yet so many do not leave.

Sadly, there are those who are just so ingrained in a life style that even if they realize they are slaves to an ideology or cult, when given the opportunity to leave they choose to stay simply because ritual and regimen are easier and take less thought than having to truly think about your own existence and what you want to do with it. They would rather be sheep herded from one paddock to another, even if they know they'll be sheared and eventually eaten, than risk the wolves of self examination and independent thought. And even some who want to get away stay simply because their family are those sheep, so even if they escape, their families are not going with them and may never talk  to them again depending on what Shepherd they're under.

Agreed.

Also, many simply reject anything that does not comport with their beliefs.   We see this routinely in forums such as NT where people will literally run out of ideas on how to directly answer a challenge (regarding their faith) and resort to tactics of evasion.   Does this inability to answer cause them to reevaluate their position or do they simply rationalize it with 'God knows the answer even if I do not'.   I think it is the latter.   The caller in the seeded video certainly illustrates the latter and even worse - instead of 'God' he would say that his preacher knows the answer. 

We always have to remember that belief only requires the abstraction of faith. It is much easier to have faith that your God, or pastor, or church has the answers for you than to realize that you have to solve your own dilemmas. It is also much easier to accept where you are in this life if you have faith that you will be going to another, better life. After all, this was the original reason for religion.

I guess I am not so willing to have others do my thinking for me.   Difficult to imagine how adults can simply trust in other human beings claims of truth (of the grandest order no less) without commensurate (or even basic) evidence.

We see this routinely in forums such as NT where people will literally run out of ideas on how to directly answer a challenge (regarding their faith) and resort to tactics of evasion.

Either that or they declare an "impasse." That's when you know they have nothing left but intellectual cowardice and dishonesty.

Ether that or they declare an "impasse." That's when you know they have nothing left but intellectual cowardice and dishonesty.

That is almost a mark of Christian belief to some people.  I am having a "discussion" with someone else who seems to believe that logic is subjective and determined by his religious belief.  I feel like I am now part of Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky.

I have almost t come to the point where I feel like playing Devils Advocate discussing logic. Its insane. 

The general religious debate nowadays is pretty much an exercise in clinging to a belief.   No longer can people use evidence of natural events (movement of the sun, volcanoes, famine, ...) to show evidence of God.   With ordinary natural events explained, the next major claim that sustained the belief was the sophistication of life - we (human beings) simply could not fathom how something like the eye could come but from a God.   With modern evolutionary sciences we know how extraordinary living mechanisms can arise by natural interactions sans direction by a God.    There simply is no necessity for a creator.

Spiritual claims (seeing dead people, having a direct communication with God, ...) have failed to be formally evidenced.   With ~7.5 billion people on the planet and plenty of time to provide evidence, not once has anyone claiming to speak with the dead, for example, demonstrated this in an objective setting where formal third party verification could be established.   Unsupported claims is all we have ever seen.

So what is left?   What can one point to that evidences a God?   The Bible?   Personal 'experiences'?   Essentially, the religious debate can only appeal to feelings.  But worse, in many cases it must flat out ignore logical contradictions and scientific knowledge that challenge the faith.

To wit, it is no surprise that religious debates typically end with the believer noting the equivalent of 'I just believe'.  Indeed, unsubstantiated belief is really all they had to begin with.

I am having a "discussion" with someone else who seems to believe that logic is subjective and determined by his religious belief.

That sounds familiar. TiG and I had a similar discussion with another who seemed to think the same way not too long ago.

So what is left?   What can one point to that evidences a God?   The Bible?   Personal 'experiences'?   Essentially, the religious debate can only appeal to feelings.  But worse, in many cases it must flat out ignore logical contradictions and scientific knowledge that challenge the faith.

To wit, it is no surprise that religious debates typically end with the believer noting the equivalent of 'I just believe'.  Indeed, unsubstantiated belief is really all they had to begin with.

I try very hard to see the best in everyone and will do what I can to rationalize their behavior so that I ignore the negatives and focus on their positive attributes. I have 2 pair of rose-colored glasses and I am well known for my idealism, even if it is occasionally tempered with a very dark sense of sarcasm.   I feel guilty for saying this but I am almost to the point of admitting that whenever I see someone saying that they are a member of conservatives religion that it is either a tacit admission of an intellectual disability or an undiagnosed mental health issue. 

 There is a very serious problem when a person's religious beliefs require them to overtly reject objective logic and empirical facts. If it were only a few people who do this we would have a statistical anomoly, but when those people are numerous enough to form a core demographic of both a political party and major religious sect there is a very serious national issue that cannot be ignored without jeopardizing the stability of the entire society. Has the public school system failed us or is this possibly the result of media that isn't required to tell the truth? Does the freedom of religion make the rejection of logic in favor of religious belief more socially acceptable?

I don't think that I am that much more intelligent than others so maybe these people have always existed and both the internet and the election of Donald Trump just made them more  visable to others.

What are your thoughts?

Worse still, the belief is held to preempt any contradictory findings by natural methods (in particular, the scientific method)  or by logic.

For example, here is a passage I have already offered which shows God commanding the slaughter of infants:

1 Samuel 15

15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them;put to death men and women, children and infants , cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. ’”

Imagine the religious response of ... ' God was justified to do this '.    Think of the moral contradiction that was dismissed by excusing this slaughter as justified .

When challenged about the morality, the religious response was ... ' Who are you to judge God ?'.

This is not the first time (nor will it be the last) that truly immoral acts such as killing infants or enslaving human beings are dismissed or downplayed to resolve the cognitive dissonance rather than critically questioning the faith itself.

That sounds familiar. TiG and I had a similar discussion with another who seemed to think the same way not too long ago.

It is both that person and someone else who is very well known in the conservtive relgious community.

Off Topic [ph]

Imagine the religious response of ... 'God was justified to do this'.    Think of the moral contradiction that was dismissed by excusing this slaughter as justified.

When challenged about the morality, the religious response was ... 'Who are you to judge God?'.

This is not the first time (nor will it be the last) that truly immoral acts such as killing infants or enslaving human beings are dismissed or downplayed to resolve the cognitive dissonance rather than critically questioning the faith itself.

Voltaire understood relgious belief,

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

Imagine the religious response of ... 'God was justified to do this'.

Imagine it? there's a certain individual on NT who has already said that. I'm sure you know who I mean.

It is both that person and someone else who is very well known in the conservtive relgious community.

I see.

There is a very serious problem when a person's religious beliefs require them to overtly reject objective logic and empirical facts.

Personally the evidence does not point me to conclude this is a lack of intelligence, mental malfunction, etc.   IMO we are all wired to seek comfort.   We do not like the idea that we will die, it is bothersome that we do not know (for certain) where we came from or what (if anything) is in store for us.   Religion satisfies all of these discomforting conditions with God.   God is an answer for any question.   If one does not hold truth as preeminent and is willing to merely accept an answer that is comforting - even if it has insufficient (and in many cases no ) supporting evidence then religion works like a charm.

Bottom line, it is clearly uncomfortable for most people to face the very likely reality that death is final, that the meaning of our lives is what we make of them and that there really is no uber-entity who ultimately 'has our back'.   

To wit, I think the reason for faith-based beliefs is fear  - not an issue with intelligence.

Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities

We see this playing out quite vividly on the world stage.

You sure take yourself seriously......I know that for a FACT!

I admitted that I do not think that I am as intelligent as others say that I am. I said that I want to see the best in people, and that I do not have the answers because I asked others what their opinion was. It is obvious that something that I said was very insulting to you and so you lash out at me because I dared to criticize religious people and conservative religious belief. 

Sure.

good grief

I'm under the impression that you don't understand the logic behind the action taken against the Amalekites.  The people were waylaid in their journey by the Amalekites and escaped, but without a swift and deadly counterattack every other group of people would consider the Israelis an easy target and would be under constant attack.  So would you attempt a war with them after hearing what happened to the Amalekites?

Remember the 40 years in the wilderness was to weed out the older generation which was corrupted by Egypt and train the younger generation in the ways of war so they were better equipped to take back their homelands.  What better way to show your enemies not to mess with you with some shock and awe.

good grief

Do you disagree with the Voltaire quote that I posted?

I understand the story quite well.  But please note that my comment was not talking about tactics of war but rather morality.   Note also that this is God -who could do anything- demanding the slaughter of infants (et. al.).

So the question I am posing is if God commanding the slaughter of infants is consistent with perfect, omniscient, omnipotent 'God of Love'.   

God was not forced by the situation to explicitly demand the slaughter of infants.  When reading the Bible one should ask oneself if God (as described by the Bible) is really a believable supreme arbiter of objective morality ... the God of Love?   Would the moral authority gratuitously slaughter infants? 

Is the Bible offering a true historical record of the grandest possible entity or is Yahweh a character invented by fallible ancient men (and thus understandably flawed)?

How else would you insure that the people carrying your word would be able to survive against their enemies who have their own gods telling them to completely annihilate the Israelis every man, woman, and enslave the children and take the animals?  Do you let them perish along with your word forever or do you send a message of "don't mess with me"?

What does that have to do with the question of morality?   Your response does not even acknowledge  anything I just wrote.   

You are implicitly defending a 'God' who gratuitously commanded the slaughter of infants.   Is this really your intent?

How else would you insure that the people carrying your word would be able to survive against their enemies who have their own gods telling them to completely annihilate the Israelis every man, woman, and enslave the children and take the animals?

this question makes no sense since i'm told quite frequently there is only one true God - so there can't be other gods telling other people to annihilate other people since those gods couldn't exist if there is only one true God, correct ? (what an interesting conundrum)

Thanks for proving the point of the Voltaire quote above.

I admitted that I do not think that I am as intelligent as others say that I am.

As we've discussed before, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.  I hope that some day, we can agree because your opinion will have changed.

What are your thoughts?

It can be very difficult to rise above your raising....or lack thereof.

It can be very difficult to rise above your raising....or lack thereof.

I guess this is where I should apologize.

I'm sorry.

Why?  Is this the Catholic guilt coming through?

the

I am apologizing for not being civil in my reply. 

to rise above your raising....or lack thereof.

I can see that. I know I am wondering if I should just throw in the towel and stop commenting at all.

I know I am wondering if I should just throw in the towel and stop commenting at all.

I hope that you won't. Your thoughts, beliefs, ideals, opinions and POV are just as important here to this site and the Members as everyone else. By allowing others to silence you is depriving others of your knowledge. (smile)

no

I can see that. I know I am wondering if I should just throw in the towel and stop commenting at all.

Please do not do that.

I am apologizing for not being civil in my reply.

Wait, what?

I'm lost.

Here is another example of biblical morality :

7   Remember,Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell.“Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!”
8   Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us.
9   Happy is the one who seizes your infants  and dashes them against the rocks .

I guess this is where I should apologize.

Not at all.

I should have explained father instead of assuming that you would understand the comment as I meant it.

We, who have been raised and beaten by religious zealots, have difficulty with discarding the beliefs that were beaten into us by the people who we should have been able to love and trust.

Discarding the belief system, usually involves discarding our loved ones.  This can be intensely lonely when a person lives in an intensely religious community...also, it could be nice to have a family.

Hence, my comment.  It was not a slam directed at anyone for any reason.

I apologize for my sloppy communication.

if I should just throw in the towel

No.  

Misunderstandings happen.  

I am thankful for our new tracking system.  Hopefully, I can catch times when I need to clarify what I actually meant vs. what I wrote.  

Yet this and other passages in the Bible are ignored as if they did not even exist.    The human mind is fascinating - the many tricks we have to hold onto ideas we desire in spite of evidence to the contrary.

I do have to say that I am not going to paint with a broad brush and say all believers are not logic.

But some believers (not all) certainly do reject any shred of logic in favor of belief or dogma.

IMO the correct assessment is not about the 'believer' as a person but rather how the believer deals with religion.   In ordinary life an individual may be an exceptional critical thinker.   But when it comes to religion it is as if a switch is flipped and the critical thinking is turned off.

Also, this does not apply to all believers.   Hardly anything applies to ALL of anything.   There are believers who think it is more likely than not that a God (by some definition) exists.   These are the agnostic theists.   An agnostic theist who holds that we were more likely created by a supreme entity makes no positive claim but simply has a personal viewpoint.   And that viewpoint cannot be easily challenged if the believer does not add attributes to God but rather sticks with 'creator'.   In contrast, one who holds that the God of the Bible (or Allah or ...) exists and follows the rules attributed to same will naturally be challenged because of the many flaws in such reasoning.

That said, do you read my prior comment as painting with a broad brush?   Is so, what specifically did you read that suggested that?

But when it comes to religion it is as if a switch is flipped and the critical thinking is turned off.

That about sums it up nicely.

The " I am right and you are wrong" will always come out.

Here's a simple rule of thumb to deal with that particular situation: just assume I (and probably TiG) are always right and everyone else is always wrong. See, problem solved. 

Okay now this is the second time in a row you have implied that I am painting with a broad brush or being insulting.   If that is not your intent then please clear that up.  If that is your intent then I ask again to at least provide a quote from me that leads you to such a conclusion.

Okay.   I misunderstood, but the reason is because you made your comments as a reply (rather than a general post) which implies that they were directed at what I have written.

The parents are worried that by listening to the show God might condemn their children to a literal Hell

I would think that any god worth its salt would welcome the exploration of differing theologies or the lack of one, prior to settling in on one or another. In that manner it could rest assured that the individual had done its homework and chosen that god as the best of the best.

Point being as there are a multitude, there is no right, wrong or indifferent choice only what you choose to believe or not. Whatever gets you through the night.

It amazes me that so many people say they believe the bible word for word. When asked about a peculiar segment though they tell you it can be interrupted in many ways.

Religions, IMO, are a fertile field of illogic.

Religions, IMO, are a fertile field of illogic.

I guess dogmatic BS makes for great fertilizer, lol

It can be.

I have to wonder.  Been wondering this for years now.  As a parent I would do anything for my children.  I would do nothing to cause them harm.  I would give life & limb for them.  Does that make me a better "parent" than his God?  His God is supposed to be our parent, but has punishments & trials that cause physical harm to His children.  What's up with that?

Maybe the God of the Bible is simply a character dreamed up by ancient men based on an agenda.    Based on how the biblical God is defined (with its many contradictions) this is actually a great case that the biblical God is indeed merely an invention of imperfect human beings.

I there is a supreme creator entity one would hope it is NOT Yahweh.    (If there is a supreme creator entity I suspect it would not want to be depicted as Yahweh.)

To be honest His brutality is one reason I was never comfortable with my faith when I was Catholic.  I always questioned His cruelty & the answers I received from the "people in the know" never satisfied me.

You are among many who lost their faith as a result of (objectively) reading the Bible.

I always questioned His cruelty & the answers I received from the "people in the know" never satisfied me.

I was also raised Roman Catholic. I discovered at a very early age that the more questions that they asked the more holes that appeared in the story.  Catholicism quickly became a house of cards that I was able to leave as soon as I was safe from my very Catholic family.  I am mostly ostracized by them but given that situation, I am better off. 

The hardest part was letting go of the guilt.

The hardest part was letting go of the guilt

I hear you on that - it still creeps up on me.  

My family tends to ignore my "heathen ways".  My father (adulterer, divorced my mother, forged her name on the annulment papers, alcoholic,  thief, bigot) was "very disappointed" in me when I last saw him for leaving "my roots".  My mother refuses to acknowledge my new path - still talks as if I am a practicing Catholic.  My siblings (we never speak - except for my sister) just ignore me.  My sister accepts me for who I am.  My immediate family are happy that I have found peace.  My hubby is a lapsed Catholic, my daughter is still Catholic although fighting through her own loss of faith, my son followed me "to the dark side".  

My hubby is a lapsed Catholic, my daughter is still Catholic although fighting through her own loss of faith, my son followed me "to the dark side".

I am the only one to leave religion and given what I lived through in my childhood I have no desire for much of a relationship with any of my family. My biggest regret is that I didn't fight harder to keep my daughter out of it and now she is conservative. Our relationship is somewhat strained but on the surface looks normal.   I didn't talk to her  very much because I know for a fact that everything I say to her is relayed to my little sister to use against me when it is convenient.

I am sorry that you have to go through that.  My daughter was not thrilled when I left the Church, but she has accepted my change I think because she has seen how happy and peaceful it has made me.  

When Faith Meets Logic

Never the twain shall meet, logic is based on thought and reasoning, the other is blind faith based on possibility.

I myself find nothing wrong with the major religious tenets (the golden rules more or less), when one casts human interpretation into the mix is when it seems to go off the rails.

Kudos to Russell for trying to be conciliatory. And kudos also to Tracie for standing up against the emotional abuse that some religions condone.

No, these beliefs are not healthy.

And the caller was an idiot.  He really didn't seem to grasp that lack of understanding.  YES, they get what you're saying.  They just don't buy into it.

Ugh.  Should have read "didn't seem to grasp that lack of belief does not equal lack of understanding."

Should have read "didn't seem to grasp that lack of belief does not equal lack of understanding."

Don't worry about it. If they can read and understand my constant typos they can certainly understand your occasional typo.

I am the one who should be apologizing to you and others.

I am the one who should be apologizing to you and others.

I must have missed it.  I have read nothing that you need to apologize for saying.

((((epistte))))

I have a 3 typo minimum per post and I often exceed that.

Did anyone else buy the subscription to Grammarly? I do and I'm not impressed with it.  I have the 90-day subscription and I'm not planning to renew it when it expires in 2 weeks.

Did anyone else buy the subscription to Grammarly?

No.  I attended school back in the Dark Ages when teachers corrected grammar.

I'm probably older than you, but grammar was far from my best subject.  I try to write coherently but I often change the post on the fly and forget to go back and correct the subject-verb tense or the many typos.

My perceived IQ would go up 10 points if I didnt make so many obvious typos.  I need those points most days.

I have a 3 typo minimum per post and I often exceed that.

I have a tendency to get lost in my editing.  I decide to reword something, delete, retype, than realize after I post that I'd deleted more than planned.

I decide to reword something, delete, retype, than realize after I post that I'd deleted more than planned.

Ditto.    Pretty much all of my posts are linguistically correct before I edit them and really mess them up.

( This is a reply to    Sparty On   @ 3.2.57 )

No its not.    Do you have absolute scientific proof of how life began?     No?      Then by your logic, it must be a myth.

You used the word ' myth ' so do not attribute it to me - my assessment was  that the creation story is an unsupported assertion - an  unsubstantiated claim .   Here is a quote:

TiG  @ 3.2.56   - That is simply a claim .   Life exists, few would dispute that.   But to claim a  creator  is an entirely different matter.   So how was life ' created '?   If you are going to cite the Bible then you will first have to establish the Bible as a credible source commensurate with your claim.   Merely asserting the Bible as divine accomplishes nothing - anyone can assert anything - unsupported assertions are worthless.

Do you understand my position?  If not, I will answer your questions if posed.

Do you have absolute scientific proof of how life began?

No.  Science does not even have good evidence at this point.   But 'proof' is too high of a bar anyway - science explains , it does not 'prove'.

Then by your logic, it must be a myth.

My logic?   By logic you have attributed to me via a straw man.   My logic concludes that we do not yet know.   We have insufficient formal evidence to offer an explanation for the origin of life.   Abiogenesis remains a field of scientific study.   Until science has an explanation the honest (and correct) answer is ' We do not yet know '.

Now, compare ' We do not yet know ' with the religious answer.   Most theists will assert ' God created life' .    This is pure speculation - not a shred of evidence that any God exists much less that the particular God in question (all sorts of different Gods have been defined) created life.    The honest position for theists is also ' We do not yet know ' but rarely will you find someone who will honestly admit that ' God created life ' is an unsupported assertion - mere speculation .   They will go to the Bible (or other appropriate holy book) and - presuming the book to be divine truth - assert (or demand) God created life.

Now, in support of those who have labeled this unsupported assertion a 'myth' note the meaning of the word ' myth ':

1  A traditional story , especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events
2  A widely held but false belief or idea.

Religious beliefs (beliefs that are not supported by evidence) correlate well with the first usage. 

This debate is truly a circle jerk and a waste of time but Its pretty simple really.    Requiring only a one word definition.   

Faith.   A concept of which those without it will never truly accept in relation to religious beliefs

No more description required.

Faith.

   This is normally how these discussions / debates end:   'I just believe'.

Well, okay, I think most of us knew that upfront.   

Why bother engage in debate / discussion if, when challenged, one runs from the challenges with a proclamation of  faith ?

This debate is truly a circle jerk and a waste of time

And yet here you are.

Requiring only a one word definition. Faith.

Or delusion.

A concept of which those without it will never truly accept in relation to religious beliefs

Perhaps because some of us prefer evidence and proof.

No more description required.

And no other explanations accepted.

Well, okay, I think most of us knew that upfront.

Not really ..... you appear to completely refuse to accept “faith” as a viable definition in this case.    I understand that and simply disagree.    As noted, faith by definition, is acceptance of something for which their is no proof.     Interestingly as a practicing engineer for nearly 40 years, I operate using a scientific approach to problem solving almost every day and I have little trouble separating this topic from that.    Many others in that community .... not so much so like I said, I understand.

Appreciate the civil tone of your debate though.    Others here have difficulty debating without  endlessly including an insulting tone.    SOP for NT sometimes I guess.

Since you apparent can’t take a hint I can help save you some time.     I am not interested in your opinion on this matter in the least.    So feel free to not respond to my “faith” related posts since I won’t respond back.

Don’t expect you to listen to that advise but there you go.

you appear to completely refuse to accept “faith” as a viable definition in this case

Faith as a viable definition for what, exactly?    It is unclear what term we are defining so I do not know what it is that I am refusing to accept.

As noted, faith by definition, is acceptance of something for which their is no proof.

... or for which there is none or insufficient evidence.    Proof would be demanding too much IMO.

So feel free to not respond to my “faith” related posts since I won’t respond back

I'm not surprised, especially when all your points or arguments are exposed for what they are or get blown out of the water. As TiG noted above, you seem to run from challenges. But that's ok. You don't have to respond. I'll still address your posts/points for the benefit of others. Your lack of response only shows off your lack of credibility.

Faith in the existence of something for which their on no “scientific” proof.    That’s been stated several times in this thread, not sure directly to you or not.

In this case the existence of God and all that goes with it.

Faith in the existence of something for which their on no “scientific” proof.

Okay that is what was confusing.   You mean faith as the explanation for existence of God -- not as a definition.

Faith is not really much of an explanation.   If I ask you to provide your explanation for the origin of life and you simply say God then all you have done is defer the answer.   The follow up question will naturally be how do you know that God exists to do this?   If the answer is 'I just believe' then the entire explanation devolves down to a house of cards based on an unsupported belief.    It has no explanatory power whatsoever.

You challenged me to explain the origin of life and I noted that science does not yet know.   That is the honest answer based on all we know as of 2018.   Religions, however, do not offer such honesty on that -and many other- questions.  Most make loud claims of certainty that God created life.   None have a shred of evidence to support the claim yet that does not stop them from asserting certain truth.   That seems like intellectual dishonesty to me.   

To wit, science willingly admits when 'it' does not know.   Religions typically claim to know what could not possibly be known - and never substantiate their claims.  When challenged, they refer to ancient books written by men.   

Again, it still comes back to faith.    Many believe God created life.    Science can not prove otherwise.

It’s really no more complicated than that.

That does not compute.  

Again, it still comes back to faith.

I am pretty sure my post made that very observation with the note that 'I just believe ' has no explanatory power.   It is something that is known upfront.

Many believe God created life.    

Yes, pretty much everyone on the planet is aware of that widely held belief.   You are stating the obvious.   Nobody disagrees that many people hold that belief.

At this point I do not know what point you are trying to make.   Most everyone knows that the foundation of religious belief is faith and that faith is unsubstantiated.   One could believe anything based on faith (and it is easy to observe irrational actions taken by people based on their unfounded beliefs - e.g. denying medical attention to a sick child).

Nobody suggested that people do not hold belief in God as the creator of life.  

Remember this all started with this comment from you:

Sparty On @ 3.2.49   -  And yet scientists can not explain how life came to be. 

Yes, science cannot yet explain the origin of life - abiogenesis is an active area of research.   Importantly, science honestly acknowledges:  ' we do not yet know' .     Religious positions, in contrast, do not hold to such intellectual honesty and are quite willing to claim:  ' see, this is the hand of God' .   That is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.   If science cannot explain something one can always say ' oh, then that must be God '.   This is what our ancestors did to explain volcanoes, thunder & lightning, floods, famine, disease, etc.   It is as fallacious a claim now as it was in ancient times.

To wit ... ' we do not yet have an explanation ' does not mean act of God '.   It could be an act of God but bringing in a God introduces all sorts of questions that actually dwarf the origin of life  question.  It solves one problem by introducing the most complex problem of all:  the origin and nature of the grandest possible entity.

Again, it still comes back to faith.

Which is really nothing more than wishful thinking and otherwise meaningless without evidence.

Many believe God created life.

Belief does not equal fact.

Science can not prove otherwise.

Science has evidence, whereas faith does not.

Again and lastly .... it still is all in the definition of “faith.”

 - A firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Most people in the world accept this concept in one form or another.    Not sure where your disconnect with it is.

To wit:  Faith .......

Not sure where your disconnect with it is.

There is no disconnect with the definition of faith.   You keep repeating 'again, faith' as if somehow you think (in spite of my posts) that I do not comprehend that simple concept.

Here is the disconnect.  (I just wrote this in my prior post.)

Remember this all started with this comment from you:

Sparty On @ 3.2.49   -  And yet scientists can not explain how life came to be. 

Yes, science cannot   yet   explain the origin of life - abiogenesis is an active area of research.   Importantly, science   honestly   acknowledges:  ' we do not yet know' .     Religious positions, in contrast, do not hold to such intellectual honesty and are quite willing to claim:  ' see, this is the hand of God' .   That is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.   If science cannot explain something one can always say ' oh, then that must be God '.   This is what our ancestors did to explain volcanoes, thunder & lightning, floods, famine, disease, etc.   It is as fallacious a claim now as it was in ancient times.

To wit ... ' we do not yet have an explanation ' does not mean   act of God '.   It   could   be an act of God but bringing in a God introduces all sorts of questions that actually dwarf the   origin of life  question.  It solves one problem by introducing the most complex problem of all:  the origin and nature of the grandest possible entity.

So yes, Sparty On, faith is what believers bring to the equation - especially when science has no current explanation.   But faith is not an explanation .   Faith is not knowledge .   Faith is not the other side of the coin to science .   Belief on faith (God created life) is not an explanation nor is it factual .   Speculation based on faith (belief without evidence) has no explanatory power .  It does not mean anything.   It is not an explanation of value any more than Zeus was an explanation of value for thunder and lightning.

Well, since i’ve said it several times, it goes with saying that I disagree.    Good place to leave this once again and finally.

Well, since i’ve said it several times, it goes with saying that I disagree.

I wrote a lot of things so using the pronoun 'it' is ambiguous.   So I will assume you mean that you disagree that faith has no explanatory power.  That means if someone holds that the Earth is flat or that the Earth is 6,000 years old, their faith-based belief should be viewed as evidence (or maybe fact?) and not considered personal opinion / speculation?   The faith that Zeus was the source of thunder & lightning is to be considered an explanation for thunderstorms?

We agree that faith is belief without good (or any) evidence.   Probably should leave it at that and not try to promote faith into something more than personal opinion.   Faith has no explanatory power - its 'explanations' are without merit until such time that they can be corroborated with good evidence.