I don't think most Christians can take the bible as a literal truth or
an actual "word of god" anymore. They've learned too much for that.

I'd like to think that but recent polls show that a majority of Christians (at least in the US) are still woefully ignorant of the most basic tenants of science, civics, history and geography.

So now, they "interpret" it according to their liking.

I've heard the phrase "Cafeteria Christians" used to describe these pick and choose theists.

I understand there are now over 10,000 denominations

That seems a bit high to me but admittedly I've not recently researched it. Nonetheless, 1000 or 10,000, your point is t...

I don't think most Christians can take the bible as a literal truth or
an actual "word of god" anymore. They've learned too much for that.

I'd like to think that but recent polls show that a majority of Christians (at least in the US) are still woefully ignorant of the most basic tenants of science, civics, history and geography.

So now, they "interpret" it according to their liking.

I've heard the phrase "Cafeteria Christians" used to describe these pick and choose theists.

I understand there are now over 10,000 denominations

That seems a bit high to me but admittedly I've not recently researched it. Nonetheless, 1000 or 10,000, your point is taken. It's trivial to break away from one sect and form another. My view is that often, the schism is prompted by some perceived moral failing of the leaders or disagreement over social issues. Petty issued when viewed from the outside but evidently very important to the "religious rebels".

The lake of fire is in the book of Revelation. I'm not sure it's defined anywhere else.

There is a story (and forgive me, I can't remember the context):
A rich man dies, having done good works and lived a good life, but he denied the existence of God. He found himself with total awareness in a sea of blackness. In the distance he saw a point of light and in that light he saw a man whom he knew to be a man of God. He cried out to that man begging him to tell his family that they should accept God into their lives because an eternity of this blackness(hell) would drive him mad and he wanted to save his family from that fate. The Godly man told him that his family had all the same infor...

The lake of fire is in the book of Revelation. I'm not sure it's defined anywhere else.

There is a story (and forgive me, I can't remember the context):
A rich man dies, having done good works and lived a good life, but he denied the existence of God. He found himself with total awareness in a sea of blackness. In the distance he saw a point of light and in that light he saw a man whom he knew to be a man of God. He cried out to that man begging him to tell his family that they should accept God into their lives because an eternity of this blackness(hell) would drive him mad and he wanted to save his family from that fate. The Godly man told him that his family had all the same information that he did and that the decisions they made would determine their fate, but that he would again give them the message of God's love (light/heaven).

A believer can only tell you about God's love. All the other crap - the do and don't list, the hell-fire and damnation - means nothing if you don't believe and accept. People who push it hard are doing it because they don't want anyone to live in darkness. They feel so strongly that they are actually a roadblock for some people.

And you're right - some Christians wouldn't agree with me, but like I said, we won't know FOR SURE until we die. Or are Raptured.

I told another clipper that I believe and accept. I have faith in something outside of myself. If I'm wrong, no harm, no foul. I'll live a good life, be a good person. If I'm right, I go into an eternity of heaven. If I'm right, the non-believer will spend eternity in darkness.

The lake of fire is in the book of Revelation. I'm not sure it's defined anywhere else.

OK. So the definition you adhere to comes not from the Bible but from a story that you read somewhere?

A believer can only tell you about God's love. All the other crap - the do and don't list, the hell-fire and damnation - means nothing if you don't believe and accept.

The rules and laws, passed down from your God mean nothing? How curious.

Or are Raptured.

LOL! Poof, there goes another one! Fairy tales like the rapture are why many in the 21st Century ridicule these types of beliefs.

It boils down to the fact that if you wish to convince people who don't acc...

The lake of fire is in the book of Revelation. I'm not sure it's defined anywhere else.

OK. So the definition you adhere to comes not from the Bible but from a story that you read somewhere?

A believer can only tell you about God's love. All the other crap - the do and don't list, the hell-fire and damnation - means nothing if you don't believe and accept.

The rules and laws, passed down from your God mean nothing? How curious.

Or are Raptured.

LOL! Poof, there goes another one! Fairy tales like the rapture are why many in the 21st Century ridicule these types of beliefs.

It boils down to the fact that if you wish to convince people who don't accept magic as reality you're going to have to do better than rely on anecdotes, subjective musings, or dubious compilations from bronze age stories dealing with primitive semi-nomadic cultures.

I told another clipper that I believe and accept. I have faith in something outside of myself. If I'm wrong, no harm, no foul. I'll live a good life, be a good person. If I'm right, I go into an eternity of heaven. If I'm right, the non-believer will spend eternity in darkness.

I alluded to this earlier. I assume you're not familiar with Pascal's Wager. I'd suggest you do a quick Google search and find out what that's all about.

Think of it this way -- endless eternity to think on nothing but your memories.

And these thoughts you're having are coming from where? What mind, what brain is firing to produce these thoughts?

I really don't have to explain or defend my beliefs. They are mine. You also don't have to accept them. And I don't demand that you do. I don't have to 'convince' anyone.

While not logical to some, 'magic' to others, insane even to some, the beliefs I hold to are shared with millions of people around the world. Monotheism is shared by all three of the major religions and even though our Rituals, Dogma and Holy Books are different on the surface they are very much in agreement on many issues. Not all, but many.

One reason I comment on these types of posts is to help you to realize that normal people might disagree with you.

I'm not a theologian. I'm not going to argue with you. If ...

I really don't have to explain or defend my beliefs. They are mine. You also don't have to accept them. And I don't demand that you do. I don't have to 'convince' anyone.

While not logical to some, 'magic' to others, insane even to some, the beliefs I hold to are shared with millions of people around the world. Monotheism is shared by all three of the major religions and even though our Rituals, Dogma and Holy Books are different on the surface they are very much in agreement on many issues. Not all, but many.

One reason I comment on these types of posts is to help you to realize that normal people might disagree with you.

I'm not a theologian. I'm not going to argue with you. If you insist on misreading my intents, there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

As for Pascals Wager:
If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a God sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity.
We understand nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He wishes to blind some and to enlighten others.

Yep.

Found it!

[i]There was a certain man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate full of sores, and desiring to be fed the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table, moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool ...

Found it!

There was a certain man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate full of sores, and desiring to be fed the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table, moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, "Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receiveth thy good tidings, and likewise Lazarus evil things: But now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that they which would pass from hence to you, cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." Then he said, "I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren: that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment." Abraham said unto him, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." And he said, "Nay, father Abraham: But if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent." And he said unto him, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:19-31

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Lazarus.html

I really don't have to explain or defend my beliefs. They are mine. You
also don't have to accept them. And I don't demand that you do. I don't
have to 'convince' anyone.

One reason I comment on these types of posts is to help you to realize that normal people might disagree with you.

I have to agree with Ilsadago 1. As a non-religious person I am often tempted to point out the "fairy tale" nature and general absurdity of religion in general. And at times I do. And in cases belief in religion has caused grievous harm to many people.

But people have the right to believe what they want. Ilsadago's faith seems to harm no one, including herself. As she mentions sh...

I really don't have to explain or defend my beliefs. They are mine. You
also don't have to accept them. And I don't demand that you do. I don't
have to 'convince' anyone.

One reason I comment on these types of posts is to help you to realize that normal people might disagree with you.

I have to agree with Ilsadago 1. As a non-religious person I am often tempted to point out the "fairy tale" nature and general absurdity of religion in general. And at times I do. And in cases belief in religion has caused grievous harm to many people.

But people have the right to believe what they want. Ilsadago's faith seems to harm no one, including herself. As she mentions she is not trying to convince anyone of anything. If people can find comfort in belief and are not hurting others because of it, what's the issue?
Not every believer is an extremist!

I don't believe in God. But I'm an agnostic, not an atheist because I don't believe anyone knows for sure.

I really don't have to explain or defend my beliefs.

True.

You also don't have to accept them. And I don't demand that you do. I don't have to 'convince' anyone.

Again, true. Although aren't Christians told to spread the Word with the express purpose to get people to accept their faith?

While not logical to some, 'magic' to others, insane even to some, the
beliefs I hold to are shared with millions of people around the world.

So? Millions of people around the world don't share your beliefs.

Monotheism is shared by all three of the major religions and even
though our Rituals, Dogma and Holy Books are different on the surface
they are...

read more»

I really don't have to explain or defend my beliefs.

True.

You also don't have to accept them. And I don't demand that you do. I don't have to 'convince' anyone.

Again, true. Although aren't Christians told to spread the Word with the express purpose to get people to accept their faith?

While not logical to some, 'magic' to others, insane even to some, the
beliefs I hold to are shared with millions of people around the world.

So? Millions of people around the world don't share your beliefs.

Monotheism is shared by all three of the major religions and even
though our Rituals, Dogma and Holy Books are different on the surface
they are very much in agreement on many issues. Not all, but many.

Different on the surface? I take it you don't have many Hasidic friends. They may take objection to that whole Jesus is God thing that you adhere to. I don't think they would assume that is trivial.

One reason I comment on these types of posts is to help you to realize that normal people might disagree with you.

To help me to realize... How arrogant of you to even imply something so obvious. Really, people actually might disagree with me! What a revelation. I think the reason you post is to attempt to justify your position because you feel attacked personally if anyone criticizes your beliefs.

If you insist on misreading my intents, there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

And I misread you where? And thanks for at least finally admitting that your intent was to change my mind. To do so would naturally require evidence of which you've presented none. So I don't really understand what you were hoping to accomplish.

You see, I don't really care if you change your mind or not. As long as you don't attempt to force your ideas on others you are free to hold any belief you wish. This doesn't prevent me from criticizing or commenting on your beliefs.

As far as the Pascal cut

As she mentions she is not trying to convince anyone of anything.

By her own admission this isn't the case.

If people can find comfort in belief and are not hurting others because of it, what's the issue?

People find comfort also in a fifth. And religion does cause harm to people.

Not every believer is an extremist!

Straw-man argument. No one called anyone else an extremist.

I don't believe in God. But I'm an agnostic, not an atheist because I don't believe anyone knows for sure.

Atheism means one who simply holds no belief. It says nothing about "knowing for sure". Do you believe there's an invisible unicorn under your bed? I ...

As she mentions she is not trying to convince anyone of anything.

By her own admission this isn't the case.

If people can find comfort in belief and are not hurting others because of it, what's the issue?

People find comfort also in a fifth. And religion does cause harm to people.

Not every believer is an extremist!

Straw-man argument. No one called anyone else an extremist.

I don't believe in God. But I'm an agnostic, not an atheist because I don't believe anyone knows for sure.

Atheism means one who simply holds no belief. It says nothing about "knowing for sure". Do you believe there's an invisible unicorn under your bed? I think the answer is obvious. You hold no belief in real unicorns (I'm, of course making an assumption here). The same with atheists belief in God or gods (capital God referring to the god of most monotheistic religions; little "g" god referring to gods of pantheistic religions such as Hinduism or gods that have grown out of fashion, i.e. Zeus, Neptune, etc.). Show me the evidence and I'll change my tune. Is there a chance I'm wrong? Somewhat but then again maybe I'm wrong about those unicorns too. You see, it's so small of a chance that I discount it and hold no belief. This is not the same as denial. Hope I've made myself understandable.

As she mentions she is not trying to convince anyone of anything.

By her own admission this isn't the case.

I read no such admission. She stated if you continued to misread her intentions that she could not could not change your mind. What sort of admission is that? Sounds more like a statement of reality to me.

People find comfort also in a fifth. And religion does cause harm to people.

If people wish to drink (as many do) that is up to them. Not all of them have alcohol problems. Please tell me in what way religion is harming Ilsadago? (whom I presume you have never met.)

Straw-man argument. No one called anyone else an extremist. [/qu...

read more»

As she mentions she is not trying to convince anyone of anything.

By her own admission this isn't the case.

I read no such admission. She stated if you continued to misread her intentions that she could not could not change your mind. What sort of admission is that? Sounds more like a statement of reality to me.

People find comfort also in a fifth. And religion does cause harm to people.

If people wish to drink (as many do) that is up to them. Not all of them have alcohol problems. Please tell me in what way religion is harming Ilsadago? (whom I presume you have never met.)

Straw-man argument. No one called anyone else an extremist.

I must confess I did think you thought some religious people were extremists. So you are saying I got it wrong and you don't believe any religious people are extremist?

Atheism means one who simply holds no belief. It says nothing about "knowing for sure".

http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist

an atheist rejects all religious belief and denies the existence of God; an agnostic
questions the existence of God, heaven, etc. in the absence of material
proof and in unwillingness to accept supernatural revelation

http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheism
atheism
Definition
athe·ism (ā′t̸hē iz′əm)noun

the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist

By her own admission this isn't the case.

I read no such admission.

She said previously:

But all I can do is show them the biblical verses. The decision is theirs and theirs alone.

If people wish to drink (as many do) that is up to them. Not all of them have alcohol problems.

True. I enjoy a drink now and then. So what? You've missed the point. Did I say all people who have a drink have a drinking problem?

I must confess I did think you thought some religious people were
extremists. So you are saying I got it wrong and you don't believe any
religious people are extremist?

Ilsa brought this up saying not all r...

By her own admission this isn't the case.

I read no such admission.

She said previously:

But all I can do is show them the biblical verses. The decision is theirs and theirs alone.

If people wish to drink (as many do) that is up to them. Not all of them have alcohol problems.

True. I enjoy a drink now and then. So what? You've missed the point. Did I say all people who have a drink have a drinking problem?

I must confess I did think you thought some religious people were
extremists. So you are saying I got it wrong and you don't believe any
religious people are extremist?

Ilsa brought this up saying not all religious people were extremists. It is a red herring argument.

There are extremist theists and extremist atheists. There are extremist politicians and extremist people of all ilks. There are moderate people of all ilks. There are people who just don't give a crap. What is your point?

As far as your pasted dictionary offering. Here's a pasting of my own from Austin Cline, the moderator of About.com. I agree entirely with his view expressed here:

The most common misunderstanding about atheism is the definition.
Many insist that atheism is really the denial of the existence of God,
but there are two errors here. First, it pretends that atheism is
exclusively about their god, the god common to Christians, Jews, and
Muslims. Second, it focuses on a narrow sub-set of atheism and atheists
to the exclusion of all others. Standard dictionary definitions list
"denial of God or gods" second; first comes "disbelief in god or Gods."
Disbelief is not the same as denial, it's either the absence of belief
or the presence of skepticism.

Hope that helps.

She said previously:

But all I can do is show them the biblical verses. The decision is theirs and theirs alone.

I missed that.

If people can find comfort in belief and are not hurting others because of it, what's the issue?

People find comfort also in a fifth. And religion does cause harm to people.

If people wish to drink (as many do) that is up to them. Not all of them have alcohol problems.

True. I enjoy a drink now and then. So what? You've missed the point.
Did I say all people who have a drink have a drinking problem?

I guess I did miss your point. My assumption was that you considered some...

She said previously:

But all I can do is show them the biblical verses. The decision is theirs and theirs alone.

I missed that.

If people can find comfort in belief and are not hurting others because of it, what's the issue?

People find comfort also in a fifth. And religion does cause harm to people.

If people wish to drink (as many do) that is up to them. Not all of them have alcohol problems.

True. I enjoy a drink now and then. So what? You've missed the point.
Did I say all people who have a drink have a drinking problem?

I guess I did miss your point. My assumption was that you considered someone drinking a fifth for comfort had a drinking problem. I don't understand what point you are trying to make in equating drinking a fifth with seeking comfort from religion.

Not every believer is an extremist!

What's my point? You claim that religion harms people. I feel that it does not harm those who are not extremists and choose to use it for comfort.
.In a sense anything you do not directly related to improving your mind,body or circumstances could be considered a "harmful" misuse of your time. I suspect that is not the type of harm you mean.
I don't see how a belief in some sort of God that gives someone comfort is dangerous to them. I know that religion can be misused and people will kill in the name of their God. Those kind of extremists are certainly damaged by religion. But that is not the majority.

Regarding your definition of atheism-Thank you for the clipping.
What I don't understand is under your definition an atheist does not deny the existence of God they have a disbelief in God.
How do you distinguish between an atheist who disbelieves or doubts Gods existence and one who denies Gods existence (rather then disbelief) and who has no doubts and is certain of God's non-existence?

I don't understand what point you are trying to make in equating drinking a fifth with seeking comfort from religion.

Ilsa was using "comfort" as justification for religion. My comment was:

People find comfort also in a fifth.

You made the jump and implied that they had to drink the entire fifth. Think of it this way. I have an overdue bill. The creditor is harassing me. The pressure is building for me to pay the bill. If I had the money I could pay the bill and eliminate the problem. Or I could have a drink and feel better for a while.

You claim that religion harms people. I feel that it does not harm those who are not extremists

Another story....

I don't understand what point you are trying to make in equating drinking a fifth with seeking comfort from religion.

Ilsa was using "comfort" as justification for religion. My comment was:

People find comfort also in a fifth.

You made the jump and implied that they had to drink the entire fifth. Think of it this way. I have an overdue bill. The creditor is harassing me. The pressure is building for me to pay the bill. If I had the money I could pay the bill and eliminate the problem. Or I could have a drink and feel better for a while.

You claim that religion harms people. I feel that it does not harm those who are not extremists

Another story. After my uncle Ike died, his soul infused the intermolecular spaces of the cloths I wear. He communicates with me by giving me signs in the clouds. I interpret these signs and act upon them. It give me comfort that Ike is still there looking over me.

My neighbor Isaac also is fortunate to have Ike live on in his cloths. Ike talks to Isaac through patterns of dust under his bed. Isaac and I have great philosophical discussions on the meaning of messages that Ike leaves. Isaac confided in me that he believes that Ike wants him to kill his children as proof that he is a good follower. I told Isaac that I though he should go to a professional Ike teacher for guidance. I read in the paper that Isaac failed to follow my advise and murdered all his children. Very tragic. He could have been helped and shown the right way.


Now my little story shows that Isaac was being enabled by me to continue to believe in this clearly ridiculous fairy tale. He murdered his children. Ike tells me to help at the soup kitchen. Ike sure works in mysterious ways.

In my anecdote, Isaac is clearly an "extremist". I'm not but I have given Isaac credence to continue his belief in Ike.

How do you distinguish between an atheist who disbelieves or doubts Gods existence and one who denies Gods existence (rather then disbelief) and who has no doubts and is certain of God's non-existence?

Perhaps it might help if you change from digital to analog. It is not an either/or situation but an analog situation. A continuum. A matter of degree of certitude..

I would not even claim disbelief although semantics forces me to use this terminology at times. I simply hold no belief. It is not a choice on my part. I didn't wake up one morning and say "today I'll not believe in god". It was instead a process I went through over a period of time whereby I never saw an...

How do you distinguish between an atheist who disbelieves or doubts Gods existence and one who denies Gods existence (rather then disbelief) and who has no doubts and is certain of God's non-existence?

Perhaps it might help if you change from digital to analog. It is not an either/or situation but an analog situation. A continuum. A matter of degree of certitude..

I would not even claim disbelief although semantics forces me to use this terminology at times. I simply hold no belief. It is not a choice on my part. I didn't wake up one morning and say "today I'll not believe in god". It was instead a process I went through over a period of time whereby I never saw any evidence of God or gods. Therefore, I have no belief in them.

I have no belief in spotted Modrots. They are a complete fiction. Made up. I don't need to deny them since I just fabricated them from whole clothe. I can come up with anything I can imagine. I can write about it. I can convince others that my idea really is true. Do I have evidence. Only my word and the book I wrote and look at all the people who also believe.

I hope I've not clouded the waters with my silly stories.