do you know why he makes us all suffer?because if we were born into heaven we would not know it was heaven because there's no pain or suffering there so it wouldn't be so great.and the reason we live suffer then die is because if we were born into heaven and immortal we would think we were stuck there forever.and if you never had a chance to have your life taken away eternal life would never seem so great!but because down here it feels like it can all be gone in a
seconds so it makes us want eternal life.but if you never knew what it was to be gone forever eternal life would not have it's main appeal and maybe you wouldn't want to live forever.and with heaven being heaven it wouldn't work if you had fear in the afterlife so you learn it here so eternal life is great forever!!

and the reason we have freewill but he ask us to follow his rules here is so he can weed out the bad!because heaven wouldn't be heaven with bad people who do bad things with there freewill.so your born to be tested to see if with your freewill you can handle living forever with other people in heaven so it's great for everyone because we keep our freewill forever.just something for people who don't believe in god or religion to think about!

and the way god has the world set up is the only way it would work.if god showed himself no one would be bad cause they would know for a fact he was real and would do nothing wrong to get to heaven. then the bad would get in.because for us to have freewill he had to give us that without his interference so thats one thing where he doesn't know what would happen so life is how he test our freewill. because it wouldn't be freewill any other way so the life he gives us is a gift and a test for eternal life it's really smart if you think about!

and if you don't believe take time by yourself go some where quiet and pray the our father pray.if you don't know it learn it.and at the end call to him and say you don't believe cause your smart and you thinks theres no evidence and if hes real you would like him to call to you and help you believe in him and give you a peace you never had before.now because he can't show himself don't expect some crazy things to happen but if you take the time to try and talk to him and ask to make you a believer he will in a way that only you and him will know and i bet it changes your life!but when you pray try and take it seriously and ask him to open your eyes to his sign and pray a couple times not just once.and what could it hurt right you don't have to tell anyone and if gods not real whats the big deal of saying a pray by yourself with know one knowing what you are doing?!cause if its not real you have nothing to lose but if he is real you have eternal life to lose think about it and try it.and remember you don't have to tell anyone so you don't have to feel dumb.plus having a relationship with god is a personal thing anyway!

MS10 said: do you know why he makes us all suffer?

Because he hates us.

MS10 said: do you know why he makes us all suffer?because if we were born into heaven we would not know it was heaven because there's no pain or suffering there so it wouldn't be so great.and the reason we live suffer then die is because if we were born into heaven and immortal we would think we were stuck there forever.and if you never had a chance to have your life taken away eternal life would never seem so great!but because down here it feels like it can all be gone in a seconds so it makes us want eternal life.but if you never knew what it was to be gone forever eternal life would not have it's main appeal and maybe you wouldn't want to live forever.and with heaven being heaven it wouldn't work if you had fear in the afterlife so you learn it here so eternal life is great forever!! and the reason we have freewill but he ask us to follow his rules here is so he can weed out the bad!because heaven wouldn't be heaven with bad people who do bad things with there freewill.so your born to be tested to see if with your freewill you can handle living forever with other people in heaven so it's great for everyone because we keep our freewill forever.just something for people who don't believe in god or religion to think about! and the way god has the world set up is the only way it would work.if god showed himself no one would be bad cause they would know for a fact he was real and would do nothing wrong to get to heaven. then the bad would get in.because for us to have freewill he had to give us that without his interference so thats one thing where he doesn't know what would happen so life is how he test our freewill. because it wouldn't be freewill any other way so the life he gives us is a gift and a test for eternal life it's really smart if you think about! and if you don't believe take time by yourself go some where quiet and pray the our father pray.if you don't know it learn it.and at the end call to him and say you don't believe cause your smart and you thinks theres no evidence and if hes real you would like him to call to you and help you believe in him and give you a peace you never had before.now because he can't show himself don't expect some crazy things to happen but if you take the time to try and talk to him and ask to make you a believer he will in a way that only you and him will know and i bet it changes your life!but when you pray try and take it seriously and ask him to open your eyes to his sign and pray a couple times not just once.and what could it hurt right you don't have to tell anyone and if gods not real whats the big deal of saying a pray by yourself with know one knowing what you are doing?!cause if its not real you have nothing to lose but if he is real you have eternal life to lose think about it and try it.and remember you don't have to tell anyone so you don't have to feel dumb.plus having a relationship with god is a personal thing anyway!

Andrespetmonkey said: Mr Khan said: Agnostic is the properly rational route. Given the compelling teleological arguments made by theists of all faiths, deists, and philosophers, one can understand the vast subtleties that could entail an unobservable, spiritual world, but at the same time it is indisputable that these intangible concepts are empirically unverifiable. At the end of the day, it's a catch between the fact that any god, gods, or some other divine pantheon are neither empirically verifiable nor empirically unverifiable I think atheism is just as rational. My reasons being: - The idea of a god is man-made - No reason to believe, default position is disbelief until given reason. I understand the points most agnostics will make but I'm confident that my atheism came from rational reasons.

You only half quoted his point. With what we know about physics and astrophysics now, the teleological argument introduces a mortal blow against atheism with the knowledge we have today. Even the late and great Carl Sagan recognized that.  "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." - Carl Sagan

In light of the Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological arguments, combined with modern day accepted astrophysics and the Big Bang Theory - it looks highly likely that the universe was fine tuned for the existence of matter and life.

Of course, the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments get Deism or agnosticism (since the arguments create a wide range of doubt that exists, and that it appears today that intelligent design was involved - but 2000 years from now scientific breakthroughs might explain this - however, there is currently no way of knowing, and there may never be a way of knowing) -  But you do not get Atheism from these arguments:

* Atheism comes from the Greek atheos - "No Gods" the assertation that no God(s) exist. This is not rational as the evidence seems to indicate that there is a sort of a God.
* Agnosticism comes from Thomas Huxley - it means without knowledge of the universe's creation - which still allows the thinker to be open to all possibilities; and not the assertion that atheism has.

Agnosticism is highly rational, but atheism is not. 

About the argument how belief in God/s is not natural - how is it not natural for the genius of human thought to not to conceive in a maker? It has arisen in every culture in the world. It is one of the most universal inventions of the human genius in existence. In this case, I woul;d argue that this is a part of the nature of human genius, and therefore is natural.

To make the jump to religion you can be one of many types of people:

* Superstitious beliefs - possibly handed down from parents - this sort of religion is mostly dead in the western world outside of the US.

* Rationalize the intangible ideas that everyone feels - such as God is love.

* Thirdly, that people accept religions, such as Christianity, as the basis for their moral belief system; they don't necessarilly have to believe in people like Jesus as real people - but rather as personification of the values they recognize as good.

Currently, atheists in Western society often bash religion from a moral standpoint; the Crusades, Jihad, Hitler, etc... Where did they acquire these moral values? The Roman Republic wouldn't have necessarilly thought of Hitler as a terrible person - but the Christian morality sees people like Hitler as terrible - and it is this Christian morality that they view the world with. Without religion as a basis, what objective viewpoint do they haver to criticize Hitler, the Crusades, or Jihad on? For all that they were doing at the time is what served their will to make themselves into the best possible people they could possibly be - but the Christian morality realizes this is wrong - and it is also the basis for the morality which top atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens use as a foundation for why religion is bad.

It really makes you think, doesn't it?

MS10 said:and the reason we have freewill but he ask us to follow his rules here is so he can weed out the bad!because heaven wouldn't be heaven with bad people who do bad things with there freewill.so your born to be tested to see if with your freewill you can handle living forever with other people in heaven so it's great for everyone because we keep our freewill forever.just something for people who don't believe in god or religion to think about!

Why would a just God decide to blame the people when they are 'bad' when it is him who gave people their flaws, and it is him who decided to give insufficient evidence of his existence to these flawed people? Why is it that even if one person doesn't find his 'way' (and statisticly speaking, out of billions of imperfect people, some of them are gaurranteed to be 'bad') then that person is blamed and ousted to an eternity of torture?

@Jumpi:

About the argument how belief in God/s is not natural - how is it not natural for the genius of human thought to not to conceive in a maker? It has arisen in every culture in the world. It is one of the most universal inventions of the human genius in existence. In this case, I woul;d argue that this is a part of the nature of human genius, and therefore is natural.

Due to it's connotations the word 'maker' is probably inappropriate. The term 'genius' is probably also inappropriate.

To make the jump to religion you can be one of many types of people:

* Superstitious beliefs - possibly handed down from parents - this sort of religion is mostly dead in the western world outside of the US.

But it's the most common worldwide, and best characterizes the overwhelming majority of religious people.

* Rationalize the intangible ideas that everyone feels - such as God is love.

This is a minority.

* Thirdly, that people accept religions, such as Christianity, as the basis for their moral belief system; they don't necessarilly have to believe in people like Jesus as real people - but rather as personification of the values they recognize as good.

Another minority.

Currently, atheists in Western society often bash religion from a moral standpoint; the Crusades, Jihad, Hitler, etc... Where did they acquire these moral values? The Roman Republic wouldn't have necessarilly thought of Hitler as a terrible person - but the Christian morality sees people like Hitler as terrible - and it is this Christian morality that they view the world with. Without religion as a basis, what objective viewpoint do they haver to criticize Hitler, the Crusades, or Jihad on? For all that they were doing at the time is what served their will to make themselves into the best possible people they could possibly be - but the Christian morality realizes this is wrong - and it is also the basis for the morality which top atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens use as a foundation for why religion is bad.

Ummm, you are aware that the Crusades and the Jihad were conflicts fueled by religion, no? (and from one POV, Hitler's movement had religious roots too) Christians were the ones who led the Crusades, and they certainly didn't see them as immoral when they led them (not to mention it's generally atheists who stress the immorality of the Crusades; other than the looting of Constantinopole, I've never heard any christian refer to the Crusades as being 'immoral'). The Catholic Church wouldn't have found someone like Hitler to be too terrible in the past (heck, they did things far worse than Hitler to non-christians and non-catholics). As for the morality issue, read some philosophy books. Plus, since religion is false, it certainly makes a poor foundation for 'objective morality'. Religion is bad because it's immoral, because it results in immoral actions.

Jumpin said: Andrespetmonkey said: Mr Khan said: Agnostic is the properly rational route. Given the compelling teleological arguments made by theists of all faiths, deists, and philosophers, one can understand the vast subtleties that could entail an unobservable, spiritual world, but at the same time it is indisputable that these intangible concepts are empirically unverifiable. At the end of the day, it's a catch between the fact that any god, gods, or some other divine pantheon are neither empirically verifiable nor empirically unverifiable I think atheism is just as rational. My reasons being: - The idea of a god is man-made - No reason to believe, default position is disbelief until given reason. I understand the points most agnostics will make but I'm confident that my atheism came from rational reasons. You only half quoted his point. With what we know about physics and astrophysics now, the teleological argument introduces a mortal blow against atheism with the knowledge we have today. Even the late and great Carl Sagan recognized that.  "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." - Carl Sagan In light of the Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological arguments, combined with modern day accepted astrophysics and the Big Bang Theory - it looks highly likely that the universe was fine tuned for the existence of matter and life. Of course, the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments get Deism or agnosticism (since the arguments create a wide range of doubt that exists, and that it appears today that intelligent design was involved - but 2000 years from now scientific breakthroughs might explain this - however, there is currently no way of knowing, and there may never be a way of knowing) -  But you do not get Atheism from these arguments: * Atheism comes from the Greek atheos - "No Gods" the assertation that no God(s) exist. This is not rational as the evidence seems to indicate that there is a sort of a God. * Agnosticism comes from Thomas Huxley - it means without knowledge of the universe's creation - which still allows the thinker to be open to all possibilities; and not the assertion that atheism has. Agnosticism is highly rational, but atheism is not.  About the argument how belief in God/s is not natural - how is it not natural for the genius of human thought to not to conceive in a maker? It has arisen in every culture in the world. It is one of the most universal inventions of the human genius in existence. In this case, I woul;d argue that this is a part of the nature of human genius, and therefore is natural. To make the jump to religion you can be one of many types of people: * Superstitious beliefs - possibly handed down from parents - this sort of religion is mostly dead in the western world outside of the US. * Rationalize the intangible ideas that everyone feels - such as God is love. * Thirdly, that people accept religions, such as Christianity, as the basis for their moral belief system; they don't necessarilly have to believe in people like Jesus as real people - but rather as personification of the values they recognize as good. Currently, atheists in Western society often bash religion from a moral standpoint; the Crusades, Jihad, Hitler, etc... Where did they acquire these moral values? The Roman Republic wouldn't have necessarilly thought of Hitler as a terrible person - but the Christian morality sees people like Hitler as terrible - and it is this Christian morality that they view the world with. Without religion as a basis, what objective viewpoint do they haver to criticize Hitler, the Crusades, or Jihad on? For all that they were doing at the time is what served their will to make themselves into the best possible people they could possibly be - but the Christian morality realizes this is wrong - and it is also the basis for the morality which top atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens use as a foundation for why religion is bad.

In that Carl Sagen quote you forgot to to highlight the "by some definitions" part. Atheism isn't the assertion that there is no gods, I and most other people don't define it that way. I am an agnostic atheist meaning I don't think there is a god, but I don't know. It just seems unlikely to me.

And to the part that I highlighted. It's incredibly easy to know why the idea of gods has arisen. Because people didn't know what caused certain things to happen, they couldn't explain it, our brains are also programmed to see pattern, this is an evolutionary trait. We see "pattern" in the universe and feel the need to attribute it to something, and if we don't understand it, the easiest thing to attribute it to is a god or gods.

And I have no idea why you started wrting about morality. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. But whatever, I'll give it a shot. The objective viewpoint I have to criticize Hitler, the Crusades and Jihad on is my knowledge of how a successful and happy society works and how the world is a better place when people aren't cunts to eachother. I also don't need an objective viewpoint anyway, since the basis of morality is subjective (empathy).

Jay520 said: MS10 said:and the reason we have freewill but he ask us to follow his rules here is so he can weed out the bad!because heaven wouldn't be heaven with bad people who do bad things with there freewill.so your born to be tested to see if with your freewill you can handle living forever with other people in heaven so it's great for everyone because we keep our freewill forever.just something for people who don't believe in god or religion to think about! Why would a just God decide to blame the people when they are 'bad' when it is him who gave people their flaws, and it is him who decided to give insufficient evidence of his existence to these flawed people? Why is it that even if one person doesn't find his 'way' (and statisticly speaking, out of billions of imperfect people, some of them are gaurranteed to be 'bad') then that person is blamed and ousted to an eternity of torture?

Dude, just don't get into it with him, I saw his post and the crapload of contradictions, but it's just not worth making him get all apologetic in trying to explain it.

Jumpin said: Andrespetmonkey said: Mr Khan said: Agnostic is the properly rational route. Given the compelling teleological arguments made by theists of all faiths, deists, and philosophers, one can understand the vast subtleties that could entail an unobservable, spiritual world, but at the same time it is indisputable that these intangible concepts are empirically unverifiable. At the end of the day, it's a catch between the fact that any god, gods, or some other divine pantheon are neither empirically verifiable nor empirically unverifiable I think atheism is just as rational. My reasons being: - The idea of a god is man-made - No reason to believe, default position is disbelief until given reason. I understand the points most agnostics will make but I'm confident that my atheism came from rational reasons. You only half quoted his point. With what we know about physics and astrophysics now, the teleological argument introduces a mortal blow against atheism with the knowledge we have today. Even the late and great Carl Sagan recognized that.  "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." - Carl Sagan In light of the Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological arguments, combined with modern day accepted astrophysics and the Big Bang Theory - it looks highly likely that the universe was fine tuned for the existence of matter and life. Of course, the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments get Deism or agnosticism (since the arguments create a wide range of doubt that exists, and that it appears today that intelligent design was involved - but 2000 years from now scientific breakthroughs might explain this - however, there is currently no way of knowing, and there may never be a way of knowing) -  But you do not get Atheism from these arguments: * Atheism comes from the Greek atheos - "No Gods" the assertation that no God(s) exist. This is not rational as the evidence seems to indicate that there is a sort of a God. * Agnosticism comes from Thomas Huxley - it means without knowledge of the universe's creation - which still allows the thinker to be open to all possibilities; and not the assertion that atheism has. Agnosticism is highly rational, but atheism is not.  About the argument how belief in God/s is not natural - how is it not natural for the genius of human thought to not to conceive in a maker? It has arisen in every culture in the world. It is one of the most universal inventions of the human genius in existence. In this case, I woul;d argue that this is a part of the nature of human genius, and therefore is natural. To make the jump to religion you can be one of many types of people: * Superstitious beliefs - possibly handed down from parents - this sort of religion is mostly dead in the western world outside of the US. * Rationalize the intangible ideas that everyone feels - such as God is love. * Thirdly, that people accept religions, such as Christianity, as the basis for their moral belief system; they don't necessarilly have to believe in people like Jesus as real people - but rather as personification of the values they recognize as good. Currently, atheists in Western society often bash religion from a moral standpoint; the Crusades, Jihad, Hitler, etc... Where did they acquire these moral values? The Roman Republic wouldn't have necessarilly thought of Hitler as a terrible person - but the Christian morality sees people like Hitler as terrible - and it is this Christian morality that they view the world with. Without religion as a basis, what objective viewpoint do they haver to criticize Hitler, the Crusades, or Jihad on? For all that they were doing at the time is what served their will to make themselves into the best possible people they could possibly be - but the Christian morality realizes this is wrong - and it is also the basis for the morality which top atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens use as a foundation for why religion is bad.

@Jumpi:

About the argument how belief in God/s is not natural - how is it not natural for the genius of human thought to not to conceive in a maker? It has arisen in every culture in the world. It is one of the most universal inventions of the human genius in existence. In this case, I woul;d argue that this is a part of the nature of human genius, and therefore is natural.

Due to it's connotations the word 'maker' is probably inappropriate. The term 'genius' is probably also inappropriate.

To make the jump to religion you can be one of many types of people:

 

* Superstitious beliefs - possibly handed down from parents - this sort of religion is mostly dead in the western world outside of the US.

But it's the most common worldwide, and best characterizes the overwhelming majority of religious people.

* Rationalize the intangible ideas that everyone feels - such as God is love.

This is a minority.

* Thirdly, that people accept religions, such as Christianity, as the basis for their moral belief system; they don't necessarilly have to believe in people like Jesus as real people - but rather as personification of the values they recognize as good.

Another minority.

Currently, atheists in Western society often bash religion from a moral standpoint; the Crusades, Jihad, Hitler, etc... Where did they acquire these moral values? The Roman Republic wouldn't have necessarilly thought of Hitler as a terrible person - but the Christian morality sees people like Hitler as terrible - and it is this Christian morality that they view the world with. Without religion as a basis, what objective viewpoint do they haver to criticize Hitler, the Crusades, or Jihad on? For all that they were doing at the time is what served their will to make themselves into the best possible people they could possibly be - but the Christian morality realizes this is wrong - and it is also the basis for the morality which top atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens use as a foundation for why religion is bad.

Ummm, you are aware that the Crusades and the Jihad were conflicts fueled by religion, no? (and from one POV, Hitler's movement had religious roots too) Christians were the ones who led the Crusades, and they certainly didn't see them as immoral when they led them (not to mention it's generally atheists who stress the immorality of the Crusades; other than the looting of Constantinopole, I've never heard any christian refer to the Crusades as being 'immoral'). The Catholic Church wouldn't have found someone like Hitler to be too terrible in the past (heck, they did things far worse than Hitler to non-christians and non-catholics). As for the morality issue, read some philosophy books. Plus, since religion is false, it certainly makes a poor foundation for 'objective morality'. Religion is bad because it's immoral, because it results in immoral actions.

This wasn't my post, but just incase you didn't read this because he didn't post it as a reply, here you go.