Don’t try to deny it. I’ll prove it to you.
When you get up every morning and go to bed every night, don’t you pray to your non-god to protect you and your loved ones? What about that Book of Atheism that you quote from all the time? You even swear on it in court and when you recite oaths of office. You claim you have a moral code, just like the rest of us, but you got it from the inscriptions on those platinum manhole covers that you claim your non-god sent down to you and buried in the harbor at Pascagoula, Mississippi. Right next to the shipyards where you claim they built the Aark (atheist ark) to save all the aardvarks in the Great Flood. And I know why you only saved aardvarks. Because you atheists all believe in evolution, and you think that it happens in alphabetical order, so if you start with aardvarks, eventually you'll get all the rest. What nonsense!
Everybody with half a brain knows that God created all those animals, and that they are unchanged since he created them. We also know that Noah built the REAL ark to hold all the millions of species of plants, animals...and especially the insects. I am not sure how Noah convinced all those insects to come into the ark...only two of each...and they had to be a man and a woman insect, of course. But he probably had a lot of help from God on that. And I am sure that God helped him keep all those lions and tigers from eating the impalas and zebras too. That ark must have been awfully crowded! I did a quick calculation the other day, and each animal had less than one cubic foot of space, which must have been pretty tough on the elephants and rhinos and giraffes. But God helped out and made it all work.
But the thing that gives you away is that look of profound adoration that you wear at your weekly Atheist church meetings. Only truly devoutly religious people have such a look. That look tells me that you believe the Atheist doctrine, that the real Book, the one that tells about Jesus and the real God of Abraham, is just a book, no different from any other book, and not the actual literal word of God.
You live your entire life based on these ridiculous ideas with no facts to back them up. Only a religion could promote such a silly philosophy of life.
Wait…I didn’t mean it THAT way. OUR religion is different. IT IS THE TRUTH!!!
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 211
Your comments reminded me that I forgot to include an important point about aardvarks, and why they are so important. Armadillos come close, but they are one 'a' short. You will have to re-read the article to find the TRUE answer.
Careful, *n*n*...people might confuse that "a" with Hester's "A."
What team, Lou? Please don't tell me the Dallas Cowboys!
Well said, brynn.
I'm not an atheist. probably because I can't figure out how to practice atheism :-)
I'm one of those, "nobody knows" zealots, who likes to knock all those other zealots off of their high and mighty perches.
The world definitely needs people to knock self righteous zealots down a peg or two.
Oh God! Did I really say that?
You said, "Oh God".
What's wrong with you, man?
Some atheist you are! Heretic!
I found mine on the tag I removed from my mattress.
Hey, c'mon, Sandy. what's wrong with platinum manhole covers. Joseph Smith had gold plates. I had to do HIM one better!
I tend to believe that religious people are those who try day, after day, after day, after day to make others believe what they believe.
If you catch my drift.
I am an atheist because I simply do not believe, but I respect what others believe and I am not threatened by them --- unless they seem obsessed by it.
Then I gently point out their obsession.
lea...weren't the trees covered by the water? I don't think the Bible was very clear on that. What about the fish? I have read that some creationists have said that Noah didn't have to save the fish. They took care of themselves...but then I thought about the freshwater fish and the saltwater fish, and if water covered the whole earth during the Great Flood, was it freshwater or saltwater, and whichever it was, one of those fish populations was in trouble. But I suppose God could have handled all of that easily, right?
Andrea...I've been practicing it for a long time too. Like masturbation, it seems to just come naturally, doesn't it?
Thanks for the critique.
Oh, and about that meteor: I don't think you need an ark. Just head for high ground.
Hold on, Bert. Isn't that where the self-righteous will be?
Nah, they'll be strippin' off their clothes and waitin' for the Rapture.
It certainly comes naturally to me.
Nice to hear from you...it's been awhile.
I do catch your drift. I am not trying to make anyone believe as I believe. But I do think there are a small number of highly motivated people who ARE obsessed with their religious beliefs, who are actively engaged in attempting to impose those beliefs on the rest of us through political action.
I am not threatened by most believers, because most of them practice their faith privately, and do not try to impose it on others. I am not even threatened by the self-righteous folks who feel it is their evangelical duty to pester the rest of us with their inanities. It's when they decide that they ACTUALLY KNOW what is best for the rest of us, and attempt to impose those beliefs on us that I get energized.
I'm not saying they are the final answers to your question, but you might start by reading the article and the comment thread that follows.
Here is the link.
Urge to kill...fading...
So..."anti-theist" is the more accurate definition of my non-religion. If Christianity can have Christian soldiers...."marching as to war"....I can be an atheist commando...defending rational thought and truthfulness.
Philippians 2:8-11
You know. . . even if I didn't believe that Mount Everest existed and that it towers above all other peaks on this planet, it would still exist and it would still tower above all other peaks on this planet. . .
This is still a day of mercy - why don't you turn and embrace YOUR LORD. . .all who come to Him He will in no wise cast out. . .
this is still a day of mercy but there rapidly approaches a day of wrath. . .
Kiss the Son lest He be angry. . .
-Mark
No shit Mark!...really?
What if Mount Everest did not exist..but you believed it did...would it "still exist and tower above all other peaks on this planet"?
you write:
What if Mount Everest did not exist..but you believed it did...would it "still exist and tower above all other peaks on this planet"?
Only in my mind . . . if I were sincere in my beliefs, I would be sincerely wrong. . .if I held to my views religiously, I would espouse a false religion. . .
What's in your wallet, Mike?
-Mark
You may be right about that, Mark, but if it happens, it will be man-made, man-inflicted and nuclear, and there won't be any Second Coming associated with it. Just the end of life on the planet.
As for the biblical day of wrath, believers have been predicting its imminent arrival since the first century CE. It's an important part of the Christian myth, since it puts fear in the hearts of believers and makes them easier to control...and extract money from.
I must be in tremendous need, then....but, the question remains. If I am so busy making life better for all around me personally and those not around me but that I can help in other ways, am I really aware that I am in such dire need? So far, the answer is "no" and I am extremely happy.
I'm so glad Gary Gentry caught your omission, Bert. That's a biggy.
Kindly explain why a god who is more concerned with adulation and less with the sort of people we are would be worthy of worship.
Power is not as impressive as character.
Thus they have "idolized" the one person who came with a message and ignored the real meaning of the message, as they objectified it and him, into a Him ... and now they await some more (forever) the "return" in physical body, the 2nd coming, of that "messenger" ... all of the while ignoring the essence of the message already given by him which is that the Spirit of Truth would be made available to ALL of them shortly after he died ... and that THAT SPIRIT was to be, and was, and is, the 2nd coming ... for those wise enough to understand and accept ... those not so wise will still be fooled by their objectivity and deny everything I say to them ... so be it. Hear hear Mark ?
You write:
Kindly explain why a god who is more concerned with adulation and less with the sort of people we are would be worthy of worship.
God is passionate about His glory because He is worthy, infinitely worthy. . .
What could concern Him more? If He valued anything of lesser value than Himself, He’d be an idolator for an idolator is one who places anything above that which is supremely valuable, namely God!
What is the most loving thing God could do for us? Glorify Himself, make Himself known, for it is God, not mango ice, Who most satisfies us. . .
For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.
Malachi 1:11
-Mark
you write so confidently:
You may be right about that, Mark, but if it happens, it will be man-made, man-inflicted and nuclear, and there won't be any Second Coming associated with it. Just the end of life on the planet. . .
Bert, are you a prophet? Do you hold to these ideas religiously?
-Mark
you boast:
If I am so busy making life better for all around me personally and those not around me but that I can help in other ways, am I really aware that I am in such dire need? So far, the answer is "no" and I am extremely happy.
You sound very self-righteous and self-satisfied. Do you have your own temple?
-Mark
What's in my wallet? Reality Mark. Non-delusional, rational reality. No talking snakes, no people turned into pillars of salt, no walking on water, no rising from the dead, no big boat with two of every animal on the planet aboard, no spirits, no ghosts, no angels, no soothsayers, palm readers, fortune tellers or faith healers...no skydaddy.
Why would God be different? Because you say so?
I am an observer of the affairs of the world, and at the moment, I think the danger of global nuclear war is increasing, and the very thing you defend...religious belief...will most likely be the trigger for the catastrophe. Certainly, the conflict between Islam and Christianity is a major source of war, terrorism, and misery in the world. Nobody, not even you, would deny that. Would you?
I never knew an individual who glorified himself because of his immense "worth" that was worth jack.
Why would God be different? Because you say so?
No Steph, but 'Thus sayeth the Lord':
Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
John 12:27-28
-Mark
You write:
Kindly explain why a god who is more concerned with adulation and less with the sort of people we are would be worthy of worship.
God is passionate about His glory because He is worthy, infinitely worthy. . .
What could concern Him more? If He valued anything of lesser value than Himself, He’d be an idolator for an idolator is one who places anything above that which is supremely valuable, namely God!"
In my own personal belief, God does not require the "adulation" of anyone or anything to be glorified. His glory exists without praise, worship, reverence, or recognition of that glory by anyone. If God were all that existed, His glory would not be diminished. God is not in any way "concerned" with "being glorified" for His own personal sake, our recognition of God's glory is for out own sakes and to seek God's glory is, to some degree, only to obtain our own..........
"If God were all that existed, His glory would not be diminished."
Well, I think, you inadvertently bumped into the heart of the matter there. Consider please; If God were all that existed, what would there be to His glory? What glorious thing would He have done? Is it not in action, one can be glorious, and in the perfection of His "movement", wherein His glory is revealed and realized?
Alone, God cannot be just, or merciful, or loving. Indeed, alone, God cannot be God. I believe it is we, whom God created, that are the "pudding", so to speak, wherein the "proof" of God's glory resides. To put it somewhat philisophically, God must have been alone, before the beginning, and must have decided not to be alone forever. So, within the created, lies the "measure" of His wisdom in creating anyone at all. Only if He "succeeds" in the end, in creating beings that "enhance" His own existence, could He rightly be said to have acted in wisdom.
Put crudely; He don't owe nobody nothing. He has absolutely no reason whatsoever to allow anything to exist which does not "please" Him. And it pleases Him to be merciful, and patient, and just, and loving. It pleases Him to commit Himself to us, and our eventual worthiness of His efforts.
So, to glorify God, is to thank Him, and to thank Him is to "prove" the wisdom of His gift to us, existence itself. It is to say; "You were right".
(Thinks a nothing much, that wishes to exist ; )
I know that you and Mark are sincere, and I respect that. For me, the door you speak about does not exist. I know that you think that it DOES exist, and you want everyone to share your joy in passing through that door.
But please think about this: We nonbelievers do not see the door, and do not NEED the door. We have "utter freedom" without that door. I know you may find that hard to believe, but it is true, as true as you think your beliefs are.
Please be as tolerant of our views as we are of yours. I think that you are tolerant, but there are many who believe as you do who are not so tolerant, and wish to impose their views on those of us who do not believe as you do.
If mankind is to survive, we need to find a way to reconcile our differences. Not just between you and me, not just between those who believe as you do, and those who believe as I do, but also between Christian believers like you and Islamic believers.
Until we all learn to get along, we are all threatened by religion.
"If God were all that existed, what would there be to His glory? What glorious thing would He have done? Is it not in action, one can be glorious, and in the perfection of His "movement", wherein His glory is revealed and realized?
Again, in my own personal belief, God's glory is not anything He does or doesn't do, but in Himself alone. Like Himself, His glory is the "I AM." Anything that might claim to possess "glory", obtained that glory from God. Even Christ said that His glory came from the Father. When someone "gives God glory" they are merely giving recognition to that which was there all along.
I am sure that this will sound quite contradictive to you, but I do not believe that God needs anyone to show mercy to, to be merciful. Nor do I personal believe that God needs to "prove" who and what He is to anyone. If He provides "proof" of His glory to us, it is solely for our sakes, not for His.
I realize that this is a very crude illustration, but you yourself do not need to "prove" that you are a man to know that you are man. No matter what I or anyone else thinks or believes, you are still a man. If you were the only living being in the universe, you would still be a man. You do not exist as a man simply so that I can call you one.
Your characteristic of being a man exists independent from everyone and everything else. Nothing I or anyone else can say or do will ever make you less of a man or more of a man than you already are.
Very crudely put, this is how I see God. All the praise and worship of all the souls ever created by Him cannot give Him any more glory than He already possesses. Nothing can make Him any more God than He already is.
As far as God being "alone," I believe, in some ways, God is always and will always be alone. He has no equal....no peer......no counterpart. All that exists or ever shall exist will forever be less than Him. He must continuously and eternally share all that He is and all that He has, or else there can never be anyone or anything to share it with.........
And I should take John's word for it, why? I know him less than I know you. Although you both have an agenda.
"He must continuously and eternally share all that He is and all that He has, or else there can never be anyone or anything to share it with..."
Well, though it may not seem apparent to you now, that's what I said.
" . . . but mine doesn't require adulation either."
Adulation? What a silly concept . . . we cannot glorify God through something as silly as "adulation", and He never asked for such a thing;
He hath showed thee, O man, what is good, and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God ?
Hypocrite.
Historically, that has been true, and it is true today. Can any of you "believers" deny it? Look at the recent conflicts...Middle East, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorist attacks in Indonesia, England, Spain and Africa...the list goes on and on.
The "End Times" that fundamentalists look forward to so avidly...where will they be fought? Middle East. Who will be the adversaries? Christians vs. Muslims. QED
Bullshit, you hypocrite. I have personally challenged that stupid idea you babble like a dogmatic idiot, half a dozen times, and you just won't reason it through. It's a goofball facade, born of nothing more than wicked self justification, as far as I can tell.
In the last century alone, over a hundred million human beings have been murdered in cold blood, by irreligious groups and movements, and the foolish who joined, facilitated, or profited from them. To ignore that, and strain to pretend psychoanalyze billions, based on your own prejudice and malice, is nothing but the worship of yourself. Adulation, turned to fear and denial, as far as I can tell.
John...then I take it that you deny that ANYONE has been killed for religous reasons?
I think your religious feelings are getting the better of your logic, old friend.
Generally speaking, in most of the following cases, religion is both the stated cause of the killing and the only substantive difference between the two opposing groups. Obviously, there would be many additional conflicts where religion is just one of several divisions.
Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
Algeria, 1992-
Baha'is, 1848-54
Bosnia, 1992-95
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Croatia, 1991-92
Early Christian doctrinal disputes
English Civil War, 1642-46
Holocaust, 1938-45
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
India, 1992-2002
India: Suttee & Thugs
Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
Jews, 1348
Jonestown, 1978
Lebanon
1860
1975-92
Martyrs, generally
Molucca Is., 1999-
Mongolia, 1937-39
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Responsibility generally (Is religion responsible for more deaths than ...?)
Christian culpabiltiy
Russian pogroms:
1905-06
1917-22
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834
Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
Thirty Years War, 1618-48
Tudor England
Vietnam, 1800s
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Xhosa, 1857
In addition, here are a few noteworthy conflicts where dissimilar
ethnic groups fought for primarily religious reasons:
Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Crusades, 1095-1291
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s
You said, "Until we all learn to get along, we are all threatened by religion
I think you should have said: "Until we are not threatened by religion we will not be able to get along". It's not going to happen. You have granted that these Christians in this thread as being sincere...sincerity does not equal rational nor does it lessen the threat of their fanaticism.
You cannot expect the return of your tolerance by a religious zealot nor can you expect a rational conversation about religion from one has based his/her beliefs on faith only doctrine.
"John...then I take it that you deny that ANYONE has been killed for religous reasons?"
? ? A hundred million is the last century alone . . versus anyone? ?
I think your religious feelings are getting the better of your logic, old friend.
Here's a great idea, which would put your fantastic logical skills to "good" use; It is obvious to me, that the vast majority of all violence ever done by man, has been perpetrated by people with two legs . . . SO, let's lop off one leg (of those with more than one now), and see if that doesn't render a peaceful world.
LINK
You won't like the numbers. Over 800 million killed in religious wars and conflicts. The number for nonreligious is a fraction of that.
In this country, they just try to impose their Scripture-based beliefs on the rest of us, creating animosity, litigation and political strife. That doesn't kill many people...although some abortion clinic doctors have died at their hands. But the intent is there..."These are my faith-based beliefs, and the Bible says I should do everything I can to spread the word." That includes overturning laws, like Roe v. Wade, and trying to sneak creation "theory" into school science classes...or put up Christian icons in courthouses. It's all part of the same "I know what's best for you" attitude. It's how religions work.
And THAT is what I object to...along with all the murdered people.
Yes, that is a better statement, Michael.
Your wild claims about nonreligious vs religious deaths are totally irrational. Go study it, John, and learn the facts before you shoot off your mouth.
Bullshit, Mr. Psychic, deal with the logic, or at least quit defaming billions without logical reason.
I have to go pack. We leave for New York at 5AM tomorrow morning, and I will not be back here for two weeks. I look forward to reading all of your posts when I return.
interesting winnow--here's the OTHER side of that coin, though: "Alone, God cannot be jealous, or mean, or loathing."
the Christian construct is all of the latter...and its believers?
they act like it's AWESOME. -"Send 'em all to Hell! Cuz we love 'em, and they didn't have the good sense to CONFORM!"
thanks, Jesus.
so much love in this room now.
could you please leave?
And who is calling for wrath here? Who is defaming and accusing and vilifying? Who could that be . . . ?
Since we Christians truly believe - and increasingly so as we hear the heart of God - that those who do not choose Jesus ARE doomed, how can we be silent? Our tolerance would then be only a self-serving need to not be inconvenienced.
I think that what you are really asking for is not a cessation of honest dialogue (I've seen you grapple with many issues here on Gather) but a greater evidence of love. I can say that, of course, you "don't see the door...need the door...have utter freedom",but I need not call you hypocrit and idiot.
When you don't see or need, it's because you've not been born-again (yes, that tired old religious term). Just as a baby in the womb wouldn't/couldn't understand about the world outside the womb, it is necessary that you pass through that Door in order to understand: I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Noone comes to the Father but by Me."
I made this decision when I was a fully independant 30 year old with a great career and not in any "need". In retrospect, I can see the downward direction my life was taking. I didn't see that at the time.
God bless your grappling with Him. Have you ever read Surprised by Joy by C.S.Lewis? It is the story not so much of his conversion as it is of his attempt to stay away from God. It's funny and beautiful. I wrote an excerpt on another article here on Gather. I'll come back with the specifics.
I would advise you to mind your own business unless you can and are willing to offer help...not salvation, not your judgment but non-bigoted assistance. For instance...I see your delusional mindset and lifestyle as not only unhealthy, but potentially destructive.....it is a matter or perspective Kathleen. I see your beliefs as "delusional" because you have no verifiable basis for those beliefs. I think this can be destructive because of the roadblock you have erected between yourself and reality. Now this is MY opinion. You do not agree and you think you are not only justified in your beliefs, but you are undeniably and completely correct...so much so that you insist that all others accept your version of reality...your god, your tenet, your religion.... and the interest you show in helping others is dependent upon their acceptance your YOUR religion.
If I see a person on a destructive path..."drugs or a window ledge, etc.,", I can attempt to intervene also, but I will be offering help with no strings attached. My offer will be a free of charge...free of obligation and free of judgment.
The Christian religion can not be tolerant of the other religions of the world or the non religions...it is not possible. The very principal of the Christan tenet is that it is the ONLY way...every other approach is damnable. How can this be viewed a tolerance?
This is my point....just about every person on this planet has had the opportunity to consider a particular religion...many have been exposed to Christianity for example. What you are offering those who you "put an idea out here" about your beliefs is not new to them. It is something they have already considered. Can you not see how your "offer" can be considered an insult..a judgment..."a holier than thou you can't possibly understand the truth unless you see it my way" judgment?
You hope that you can stand firm upon the Rock....maybe you can, maybe you will, but maybe there are some of us who do not want to stand on your ROCK. Maybe some of us want to stand on a different rock or maybe some of us don't want to stand on a rock at all.
I was asked one time, if there was anything that could change my mind about the existence of a supreme being. My reply was...and I think I shocked the person who had posed the question..."yes..yes there is something that could change my mind about the existence of a supreme being and that would be proof....not universal proof, but personal proof." Proof meaning a indication to ME that a god exists, but even then, this would not be a universal proof of his existence to everyone. My belief would not actually prove anything to the rest of the world.
My question to the person who questioned me was.."what about you? Is there anything that could shake your faith in the existence of your god?" His reply..."No". Do you see the difference here Kathleen? Do you see contradiction? If we are both searching for the "truth"... one of us has his eyes closed and his hand extended to be led and controlled....without question...with only the "hope" (faith) that he is being led in the direction of truth.
This is my objection to "blind faith".
ALSO, when someone posts on Gather, they are putting it out there for comments; or they would put the restriction in place for no commenting. Right? What they get is up for grabs. AND people who chance by and see that it pertains to religion - or any particular matter that they are not interested in - may leave without reading or commenting?
You want proof, huh? Have you heard of the Babel fish in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? If not, I'll explain later. Right now, we'll leave the Babel fish with the cobbler and pig. Of course, you want proof. Who wouldn't. We're playing "Bet Your Life" here.
Let me see if I can explain what I think is the difference. When a baby is learning to talk, he is told that a certain utensil is a spoon. If subsequently, the spoon is repeatedly called by different names, he won't be sure which is correct. If the word is constantly reinforced in many varying situations, he will come to be sure that, in fact, the name is "spoon." Now, when a person makes the decision to agree with the gospel message (Jesus' death and resurrection makes eternal relationship with a personal God possible), he does it on pretty slim evidence. Even the existence - as you say - of God seems more or less a crap shoot. This is where I was in '76. Since then, I have experienced the reinforcement. I now know that I know, but this is only now my proof. This is no proof for you. If you are searching - you said if - then God will make himself plain - and plainer - to you. I am only here - in a discussion format - to speak of what I have experienced.
and
You want proof, huh? Have you heard of the Babel fish in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
Have you read the Hitchhiker books, Kathleen, or did you just read about the Babelfish on a Christian website? If you read them, what do you think of the prophet Zarquon and his Second Coming at the End of the Universe? Or of the antics of his followers? (And then of course there's the Electric Monk, an automated believer, in another Douglas Adams novel...)
My point is that Adams did make fun of religion, and brilliantly. (You know he was an atheist, right?) But (as in the Babelfish vs. God story) he also made fun of the futility of human endeavors (42?) and the randomness of the universe that we find so hard to accept,.
Bert, in this article (and I'm only saying this since he's not here to say so himself) is not making fun of any religion. He's making fun of the idea, often expressed by religious people, that "atheism is just another religion". His point, expressed satirically, is that it's not, because it lacks all the hallmarks of religions as they are practiced. (I'm always baffled by the above idea, incidentally, since if atheism can somehow be reduced, taken down a notch, by calling it a religion, it doesn't seem to say much for religions... But that's beyond the scope of my argument now.)
You have made a valid point about the gospel being given to some who accept it with the exclamation of "Why hasn't someone told me this before?" My amazement lies in the fact that any person who is deeper that a mud puddle, in the philosophical sense, has not considered the existence of a supreme being prior to being "witnessed to"....is that the correct term? But can you still understand my objection to your proselytizing? Can you understand that for SOME of us...this is a condescending and insulting act?
I never exclude any person's right to post a comment on Gather. It is, like you have said, an open forum. In fact, conversations of this nature are very interesting to me and I participate in many of them.
"Of course, you want proof. Who wouldn't. We're playing "Bet Your Life" here."
Am I? Am I playing "Bet my life" here? Is this the way you approach your faith? Better to err on the side of belief? Have you made Pascal's wager? I'm asking, not assuming.
I'm not sure I follow your spoon analogy. Maybe I do? Let me see. If a baby is told a spoon is a spoon enough times, the baby will call the spoon a spoon. So if a child is told there is a supreme being and the name of that supreme being is "God"...then that child will call his/her supreme being "God". The child has no evidence of the existence of this god other than the instruction of his parents, but he takes those instructions and adopts "God" as his supreme being.
What if the child lived in a different part of the world? What if the child's parents called their supreme being "Allah"? The child would then call his god "Allah". He would have no evidence for Allah's existence other than the instruction of his parents, but he takes those instructions and adopts Allah has his supreme being.
Who is right Kathleen? We're talking about two different gods and both children are certain that they are worshiping the real god. They are certain based upon their faith. But this cannot be...UNLESS...they are both worshiping the same god but using different names.
But...there can be one and only one god...according to both Christian and Islamic teachings...each has it's own god...the difference is not in the tongue in which the god is described. This is a quote form this web site: http://www.sultan.org/articles/god.html
"It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender. This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word "god," which can be made plural, as in "gods," or made feminine, as in "goddess." "
Who is right? It is not logically possible for both to be right. One must be wrong OR they both can be wrong... I think they are both wrong, but you already know this.
So...back to the question at hand...one of them anyway. How are you so certain that you are right? You cite your personal experiences, but by your own admission, you admit that your truth is not proof...not verifiable evidence. It is only your personal proof.
Why do you suppose you "need" to share with others your personal truths? What is your motive? It it really to share something worthwhile...something valuable? OR...ask yourself this...are you really seeking reinforcement for your beliefs? Are you really, maybe on a subconsciouses level, looking for the reinforcement of your beliefs because of your insecurity about the truthfulness of those beliefs? Hold on...I can hear you asking me the same thing...and you would be asking a valid question except for one thing. There would be no atheists if there were not believers. If I need the security of the company of the majority...I couldn't possibly be an atheist as we are in the very definable minority.
If atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."
I say this because I for the very most of my life was just like Michael in his views from what I have read of them ... I grew up around Christians just like Kathleen all of my life with many of them even close relatives ... so I have sure "heard it all" ...
But resisting organized (institutionalized) religion to the end, I eventually found myself seeking something that I apparently never had, a real sense of self satisfaction. I had always been pretty much a truth seeker in life, seeking deeper answers to the why of things rather than the what.
I had found that life in general was very deceiving due to the disingenuous-ness of so many people, especially those in positions of power and claimed authority ... the worse offenders being the secular politicians, but even worse, the religious leaders because they claimed to speak for the ultimate and absolute ... the very highest truth(s).
In my "mid-life crisis" depression about all of that, I finally began a long haul of self help research (and an anti-depressant)(the "drug" to keep myself from committing suicide, I was almost that depressed) ... of course I got the usual recommendations that I needed God in my life ... but having always believed via the 2nd hand "preaching" of the religious, that "they" had an "ownership" on God through "their" Lord Jesus (as the "only" way), I always rejected anything such as that because I just somehow deep down inside "knew better" (Intuitively) because I knew myself to be at least above average in intelligence ... and I could not say the same for so many that lived a life of "that" faith by all possible standards of observation anyway.
Thus when some people, such as a therapist I briefly visited, suggested "spirituality" as a possible cure for my problem, I automatically rejected it because religions had always claimed that "they owned it" ... then I was told of another view of spirituality, which in my relative "conservatism" (even though I am a relative "liberal") I thought of "new-age" activities such as hippies taking drugs and California hot-tub parties (remember, this was about 20 years ago) ... and I still rejected the thought.
But eventually I tried a relaxing meditative procedure, extremely simple, just laying on my bed in the dark, conscious of my breathing in and out, attempting to completely let go of cares and thoughts otherwise ... and I had an experience that astounded me, a feeling of being encased in a cocoon of complete love and floating off of the bed ... it lasted for a very short time but was extremely profound ... within about 3 days time I had more related experiences that had a culmination more lovingly profound than any words could describe and I knew without any doubt that it was real and personal and related to all of the things I had ever heard of that a God "should" be.
I spent years of non-stop reading and research then to better understand just what had happened to me in terms of the experiences of others ... I needed to put it all into concreteness, to have something to "anchor" it into my mind in "terms" that I could speak of in an attempt to relate it to others ... I knew without a doubt that it was highly spiritual and I was even told in no mistaken terms, some things by the "source" ... one of them was to "tell others" ... thus I wrote a book about it all to do so and then came here to Gather two years (+) ago to continue that "mission" ...
Thus, between Kathleen and Michael, I now stand, knowing of both, but being different yet ... but knowing for absolute certainty in my mind that the most of Christianity has a very "limited" understanding of the true meaning of their own religion ... it has so much more potential for everyone than that which they restrict themselves to ... and in insisting that they have the final word, they "turn off" the bulk of the rest of the world and also restrict the rest by a sense of "default" ... just as "they&quo