Considering it is impossible to substantiate religious beliefs because you can always cry statistical probability religion shouldn't be discussed on this forum period.
Hence religion always comes down to personal experience which goes against scientific reasoning which will always put at odds the skeptic and true believer.
Secondly, I was taking liberties with a quote from the Bible that says the fool hath said in his heart there is no God. It's what God says, and if you take that personally, well maybe you need to take a hard honest look at what you believe.
My wife would probably take exception to you taking liberties with scripture, given she grew up as a fundamentalist Baptist. '
I would take exception that religion should be about personal experience. I find that highly dangerous.
Consider that as a kid, I was sexually molested. The man who did so claimed to be a Christian. If a minister were to therefore claim that molesting kids is acceptable, (and this is not hyperbole, BTW, given the recent past), that somehow his god ordained it, who are we to claim on the basis you have stated that this is wrong? Never mind the incredible damage done to children in the years that this took place within the RCC, and in certain Protestant churches.
I don't accept this idea that religion is so personal that it cannot and should not be tested. Quite the opposite: If you're going to insist I bow before your god, or suffer an eternity in utter misery, (or even a mere seven years, plus one thousand), you'd better have some solid evidence that what you say is so. And that goes well beyond tossing a book at me, and demanding I read it.
I would further say that unless your actions indicate any concern beyond you own immediate ones, or your own selfish desires, including your narcissistic beliefs that religion is based solely upon one's own experience, then I fail to see even that limited evidence for the existence of your... uh...
"god."
It's not circular reasoning to say that you are a fool for believing that there is no God.
It is self evident that there was a creator. The statistical probabilities for the various laws of physics are so staggering to begin with that alone should make you question the idea that there is no God.
It's more comforting to believe there isn't a God than to have to come to the conclusion that there is, and that your behavior has consequences.
The statistical probabilities improve considerably when you realize we're discussing eternity. The claims are that the creation of Earth is the equivalent to a monkey typing the entire works of Shakespeare, or a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and creating a 747. It's truly that impressive, but it's far more likely to happen when you realize the time span involved. It's even more believable once you recognize it only needs to happen once.
I would further say that my actions have always had consequences. It might be more comforting to some to believe those consequences extend beyond this life, that what small comforts I've accrued can be stripped if I somehow violate the laws of the divine, either through watching porn, working on a Saturday, or even picking my nose with a screwdriver. To my mind, I find that rather arbitrary and cruel. If you can demonstrate how that warrants my total annihilation, from memory, flesh, and spirit, or for that matter, that it even occurs, I'm willing to listen, provided you can offer evidence.
I fail to see how you define this as "self-evident." Personally, I think you're misusing the word, though there are others who would disagree.
What is the choice we are given?
You will either worship me or burn in hell.
Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me, does it?
Monster
Nope. Sure doesn't. Pretty well destroys the "free will" argument, given that there's a huge amount of coercion in all of this. And you can't get much more coercive than to damn people to an eternity of misery, even if after 1,007 years, they're dumped into the fire and obliterated from the face of what remains.
I'm sorry, Hamelekin, but this is a SKEPTIC'S board. We ask for, (and usually get) evidence. Sometimes, that evidence is shown through the words and actions of those presenting same.
I don't agree with Mr. Clingford when it comes to god, Christianity, or spiritual matters. However, I'm willing to listen because he comes at this with a willingness to discuss matters. I would say the same about a number of other Christians on this board, and while we don't agree, (particularly given I left the church due to people like you), I'm willing to hear them out simply because their actions demonstrate compassion. I find them to be people worthy of emulation.
Sadly, that does not extend to all who call themselves by the name of Christ.
