Actually, laws and rules would come up regardless of there being a god. After being around for a certain amount of time, society would recognize actions which hurt the society (killing, stealing, raping) and would naturally work towards trying to prevent such things. You don't need a God to be moral.

You seem to suggest that the only way to determine if a religion is 'true' or not is by digging deep and studying every facet of the religion. If that is true, if that's the only way to tell if a religion is true or not, then it's literally impossible to find the true religion. Using your logic, one should research every single religion in the world because that's the only way to tell if it's true or not. Do you know how many religions are in the world? Dozens, Maybe hundreds. And if it takes years and years of studying to fully learn about one religion, then how long would it take you to learn about every religion? Several Lifetimes, I bet. The chances of you finding the correct religion within one lifetime is 0%. There's always going to be another religion worth several years of studying to validate it.

I did pray every night before I went to bed, and thanked God before each dinner. I was also well-known for being pretty much the only one in my class who never ever said or did anything bad to others, and the teachers sometimes asked all others to follow my lead.

Still, all of this is beside the topic, and you still haven't answered my first post that was aimed at you.

Been wondering how one of OoSnap's thread keeps getting bumped to the top, normally they die after a few days. Seems Pezus and DaRev are keeping it going.

@Pezus: Have you ever read anything by Christopher Hitchens? From reading you posts think find it quite interesting.

Don't know why, but this thread title reminded me of the Splicers in Bioshock



.

I know it's fictional, but the sort of circular logic in that clip really bugs me (as it does in general).

It also make this video spring to my mind (I don't know how to embed it).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK7ZDSUvB6E&list=FLibiiq4VItS1x56XOy4uRgw&index=14&feature=plpp_video

The fortunate aspect about this thread is that it has remained largely civil, and as light as such a topic can be on the net. However...

* Why do people always seem to immediately bring evolution into the equation as if it somehow immediately obliterates the idea of theism. Religious thinkers for hundreds of years (before Darwin) accepted the metaphorical use of time in Genesis and mechanisms by which both evolution and theism coexist. Sure there are zealots who fight that, but there most Christian people accept evolution... just as moderate Muslim people (while saddened, and hurt) are not advocating the rioting and firebombing going on around the world because of a thoughtless video*.

Or... put another way... there is a common misconception that society believed the world was flat when Columbus sailed in 1492, when (in fact) the educated populous already knew the world was round. Here, too, the educated Christian understands and accepts evolution and how it does not disrupt their core belief system.

* I am not a particularly religious person, though I am married to one. I make a point to study all religions for commonalities, but I would most appropriately be called a "Platonist". Please keep that in mind when I point out that, for as much as people complain that theists are "always forcing their views on others", it is equally true, in my experience (on the net and real life), that atheists are as guilty of such crimes if not more so.

Case in point... someone makes a thread on about a "miracle" that happened to them, and someone else feels compelled immediately to "educate" that person by (a.) pointing out that it was all chance and (b.) calling them ignorant. Now, I am not saying that is the case here, because this is obviously a purposefully incendiary thread, and it has been civil so far... but such events happen often.

What some people need to realize is that (while religious differences have caused - and will cause - strife) the core values of the religions of the world can give direction to the directionless in a dark and confusing world. People often quote Marx, "Religion is the opiate of the people", as an indictment of theism, when (in fact) an opiate of its type may be vital for some people. We all know that that life bombards us with choices, and (often) the easiest choice is far from the best or most constructive. If it is the faith of the people (be it in whatever they choose to name Providence or the philosophy by which they choose to live) that keeps them sane and with purpose, then why should someone else see the need to denigrate those views?

Provided that those views are not harmful or extreme, the only motivations for the unprovoked attack upon and destruction of another's beliefs (beyond proselytising) would be wanton cynicism or insecurity in your own beliefs or intelligence.



* If that is indeed the primary factor of instigation.

Well, I don't agree with that either.  I've known too many great people with vastly different belief systems to believe that a fair and just Creator would allow a majority of the world to burn.  The good news about that is that each evangelical religion believes that members of its special club will be saved, so there is some disagreement about the specifics of the matter.

That is why I make a point to study as many religious and philisophical veiwpoints as possible... because logic tells us that it is the common beliefs held by the world (rathar than the disparate) that are more likely illuminate the absolute truth.  As a Platonist, I am not a fan of moral relativism. 

As for those people, their words and thoughts against you can do nothing to harm you, and (only in your response) will they get any satisfaction.

Embedded it for you . That was a good one too, I loved that episode of Futurama, where Bender gets chosen as the new pharaoh XD.

And I agree with you. Not saying that this is a particular aspect of christians, because a lot of varied religious discussions usually end when the said religious party fix their arguments around these circular dogmas and never deviate from that "logic".

Maybe that's why Oosnap threads nowadays only make me remember funny things. I tried once to be reasonable with him, on a highly dumb topic (basically he said that people could have lived 900 years as the bible said, when that's a physiological impossibility on any kind of biological standard) and vowed to never do that again . 

Decency is not the same thing as logic.