cuchulain

First cause. I never understood that one. If Christians can allow that there must be an exception(God himself did not have a cause), they why do they argue so vehemently that the universe could not be another exception?

Sorry for the late response, been moving to Georgia this week. I can understand both views. In a Christian sense, if I may make a point in such a way...by refusing to aid others in a one on one basis because a person might buy drugs etc...that comes across as judging others in my opinion. I give to others as I can, and leave it up to them to determine where the gift goes afterward. I have done my part, which is the giving. It is up to them to do the right thing with that gift, or not. In no way do I feel responsible for giving to someone who spends it on drugs or other things I might consider a vice. For example, and I have a recent one...on my move to Georgia I stopped at a gas station to fuel the U-haul. The person in the car next to me asked for help, as they were trying to visit a dying grandparent and just put their last 10 in the tank, but didn't think they would make it. I gave the fellow a 10 and told him to have a safe trip. If he was simply pan handling, if he was going to use that on alcohol or drugs, it doesn't concern me. I acted in good faith(funny thing for an atheist to say, isn't it), in giving a gift to someone, based on the information I had available. That said, mostly I give to larger charities. Mostly, things that help with kids, or kids hospitals. That's simply a personal choice, as I had a little one pass away in a Children's hospital and another who had an extended 5 month stay, and while those events were happening I got help with gas money from the hospital charity. I lived two hours away, and the trip wasn't easy as I was on welfare at the time. I saw a lot of parents there in similar circumstances, and I fully understand the hardship of having other kids in school two hours away while trying to afford gas to go see the sick child, balancing time at home for the other kids with time at the hospital for the kid in need. It's very demanding.

My belief system is based on a logical approach to life. It has no demands upon me whatsoever. I place the only demands upon me. As such, I re-examine regularly what I feel I should be doing, in accord with what I view as logical and practical and with what would fit in with the society in which I live. This may sound cold and calculating, but there is the emotional side as well. I also incorporate what I feel as well as what is logical. This could seem contradictory, but we are feeling beings as well and should incorporate emotional health as well as physical. This approach leads me to attempt to interact with others with the utmost courtesy and to assist anyone I feel able to assist when I can feasibly do so.

I don't need incentive from some supernatural being to act with compassion.

I should have clarified, I believe. I don't mean specifically us as individuals, rather us as a majority. The majority of those elected represent the beliefs of the majority of those who elected them. And I qualify that statement with often, since it is not the case every time. I now further qualify the statement by saying I may of course be wrong. Just seems like a majority of congress and the president are Christian, or at least claim the title if people wish to split hairs. And the majority of the country is Christian, or at least claims to be. That's what I meant by those we elect often hold similar beliefs to us. So when we elect someone with similar beliefs, they aren't exactly the same of course. Maybe the person we as a people elect has beliefs that are very similar except...and maybe that one exception turns out not to get publicized, and ends up being something that this elected official pushes through, an agenda. Maybe that agenda is detrimental in most of our minds, but we elected the person who passed through the law. Now it's legal, but perhaps not moral and not something that the majority actually agree with. I can second not caring about their philosophy, to a point. But their philosophy might affect how they pass, or uphold, laws. Agreed, also, for electing the best person who is on the ballot. They certainly don't share my beliefs, either. Not any Atheists in congress that I am aware of, but I am not as current as I should be. Not any in the supreme court that I can think of either.

correcting belief IS important, and here is why: we live in a country ruled by laws created by those elected. Those we elect often hold similar beliefs to us. What if they are wrong? They hold erroneous beliefs, and propagate those erroneous beliefs through the law whenever they can. If their erroneous beliefs are corrected before they are elected, or possibly even after, then they may make better laws for us all to live by. Sure, what they are doing now is within the law perhaps. But what if they change the law to suit their beliefs? They will still be acting within the law, but it may be immoral. This is why I don't bang my head anymore with Gnostic Bishop about his correction of others. He acts in accord with the greatest good as he sees it, and I couldn't ask for better from anyone.

I think that sums it up. Sore loser syndrome? I don't like Trump, but I accept the results as they are. That seems to me to be the best way to change future results, by accepting reality and working within its frame to attempt to see results I would prefer later. The same thing biblically, of course. I view the bible, I accept it the way it is, as a flawed work that seems to diminish with scientific discovery rather than expand. As an aside, I watched an interesting video of Bill Nye touring the Ken Ham ark exhibit thing. It's interesting to watch the futility, and disappointing that anyone would rather believe Ken Ham about science than Bill Nye.

It is the big flaw in the battle against bullying that we condemn the bully but do not follow through by teaching people how to cope with being the victim of bullying. Some people cannot handle words against them, and it is a sad state of affairs when a person's life ends because they didn't know that words are just what they allow them to be. I do not say that we should allow bullying, or the bashing of ideas if you will. Only that people need to be supplemented in their education to cope with having their ideas, thoughts, religious tenets, or whatever else...questioned. I debated with a girl in high school about the existence of God, and was perfectly polite in my responses and answers. The debate ended when she yelled out, "just shut up you stupid" and ran away. She didn't run away because I was mean to her. She ran away because she couldn't handle having her values questioned, and decided to pick an argument with me about her values. If she had been exposed to having her ideas questioned before, she probably would have been better prepared. As it is, she firmly believed I was bullying her, even though she instigated the debate and I never called her any name or attacked her in any way.

So then hiding it at the time, and committing adultery before the divorce, those weren't bad things? I reiterate, why did he hide the affair?

I wonder if gravity was ever regarded as an entity? I know the sun was. And the moon. Religion, it just doesn't seem to have a good track record with describing entities, does it? I am unaware of any time when science regarded anything as a supernatural styled entity, even acknowledging that supernatural is a misnomer. But at the least, if scientists ever did determine anything of the sort using the scientific method, I am fairly certain it has since been debunked. What is accepted science has a propensity to be tested and confirmed and changed when found to be in error. What is accepted religion has a propensity to be fought for, argued for, and vehemently adhered to...even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

There are lots of reasons for people to suspect others of thinking different things. Mostly past patterns and behaviors, mixed with personal life experience and perhaps some observation. Maybe mix it up with some history of posting, but that's a little hard with some people as they change opinion dependent upon whom they are speaking to, it would seem. Anyway, good luck understanding the pattern, Johnathan.

My dad used to start off his rants with, "Now I don't mean to talk bad about anybody..."...but then he did. It seems like about the same thing, claim that you don't claim any religion, but then talk about that non existent religion.

If the husband didn't see it as a bad thing then why did he hide it?

Doesn't put me off, but that shouldn't be a surprise as I was a Druid for 20 years. I do not say this to mock, so please understand that this is simply my view of all religion these days, but I view all of it as mythology and faerie tales, and as you say there is nothing more fantastical about one belief system than another. I mean really...a man flew to heaven on a horse? worldwide flooding in which the only family saved was Noah's, and we aren't all inbred? Zeus gave birth to Athena by cracking open his head because he had a migraine? Same difference to me, my friend. The only difference for the religious is that they take it one step less than I do by believing in their religion, whereas I view it all as mythology.

Or as I debate, hopefully remaining friendly, Christians and the unexplained.

There are many people that insist the imagination is limitless. It is incomprehensible to me that these same people will insist the imagination could not have come up with whatever they propose, such as reincarnation feelings.

i'm a dinosaur in that i fully enjoy the time between posts. gives me a chance to consider positions.

Welcome to the jungle...I hope you like salt, because a lot of things should be taken with a grain of it

And to you as well. I used to be pagan, not all that long ago actually. Druid, specifically. Bright blessings.

its only profaning if gardner can show that his words were holy, else its anyone's game and all opinion, equally valid as anyone else's.

the same way Christians prove their God is real.

I probably was conflating them. I mean to include all religions, but many religions prefer to be called spirituality, even though they have deities and set rules just like a religion. I suppose I was being to pc. Let's rephrase, and leave out the spirituality bit, and call it like it is. Any good that cannot be done without religion?

The illustration of a point is not proof, was my point. Kind of like someone submitting a sketch to the court as photographic evidence.

So many topics lead to the good that religion brings. I was wondering, does anyone have an example of the good religion or spirituality brings THAT CANNOT BE DONE WITHOUT the religion or spirituality?

Parable is the key word. A story used to define a point. Story...So in order to demonstrate the truth of Christianity, a person has to make up a story? Even your bible says it clearly...you shall know them by their fruits. Your fruits, they are fictions in an effort to convince someone of some point you believe. I could make up a story about Atheists and Christians, and slant it heavily in favor of the Atheists. That wouldn't make that story true either.