What religion is more suitable for us?

Post Reply New Topic

Which Religion isn't an invented religion? On which one do we have reliable scientific evidence for its existence of a god or afterlife? All religion is based on mythological old practices and writings, and has no proof. Their gods play hide and seek and are fooling around, always moving places, from Zeus on the mountain, to up in the sky where people cannot detect them, from year to year predictions being made of apocalypse only to go wrong, and atheists who don't pray or believe don't have a difference in results, it's mass delusion that is indoctrinated in children when they don't have the capacity to draw their own logical conclusions and put the research back to back, riding of fallacies that keep them trapped in it. Religious cults are willing to keep their followers in to milk them of money and human resources, and if you leave, they shun you, or have systems to prevent that and magazines to multiply the mental illness and spread the poison within a society.

They have all-powerful narcissistic gods who demand belief, but their immorality is of a horrid old time judgement system, we as a society now know that punishing the child for the father isn't the way, otherwise the prisons would be much more filled with innocent children. There are many more inconsistencies and barbaric moves. The god of the old testament is still the same god and preaches of the same things, including slavery, when he should of abolished it, but it's that obvious humans thought the religion out, because they were practicing slavery then.

I don’t know at this point, I share my spiritual related experiences and I always get doped up with medication all because the DSM 5 counts talking to spiritually beings as delusions so I quit sharing my experiences with everyone. All because the dsm is way to judicial. I bet if I got a rediagnosis for autism I’d drop from level 1 to 2 due to all that’s changed. I don’t like how the dsm red flags talking to God.

First of all, I'm not really going for a debate in replying to this, and I certainly am not looking for a confrontation. I'm more expressing my thoughts than anything, but my goal is not to be unfriendly. I can't say that I'll reply to you again if you respond.

You may not realize it, but you're starting from a point of view that ASSUMES that scientific evidence for God cannot exist. Also, I think it's important to understand what science is and what it is for. Science is one means of understanding the physical world. And I think science is truly a GOOD thing. We are made in God's image, and part of that involves being blessed with a rational mind. Science is a product of our rational mind and has empowered us to do amazing things.

The interesting thing about science and God, though, is that even though science is ill equipped to draw conclusions about the supernatural world, science does inform us about what IS normal and natural. Science can inform us of what is known to be naturally impossible. So when things do happen that are beyond the realm of possibility, we can logically conclude that it is possible that a supernatural force is involved. Note that I did not say we can conclude with CERTAINTY that it is supernatural activity, only that a supernatural explanation is logically possible.

But the underlying problem to what I quoted from you is a certain assumption about God and science, and that is the hard or strong empiricist view. That view makes a firm assumption that ONLY what you can see and ONLY what exists in nature is all that exists. That is something in itself that cannot be scientifically proven. Also, the strong empiricist position would logically include empiricism and science in what must be proven, and because it requires itself to prove itself by its own methods and standards, it is irrational. It is unreasonable to assume anything that itself requires proof. So if you're going allow for scientific reasoning without proof FOR scientific reasoning, then you must also allow for other things, also.

And I haven't even accounted for the methodology of science. Science is by nature skeptical. Of everything. Evolution, for instance, possesses strong explanatory power. However, evolution is only a theory, meaning that while the theory has strong explanatory power, it is logically possible with time and further study that a better theory could eventually replace it. Gravity is a natural law; gravitation is a theory. Given time and further study we can develop better theories about gravitation. Magnetic forces remain a mystery, but there are many theories surrounding magnetism--some better than others, or some serving a particular purpose. The book is never closed with science. So understanding that science is intentionally skeptical, science is not prepared to close the book on God's existence. Science isn't prepared to close ANY book. And thus I think as long as science approaches God with an anti-supernatural bias, it's safe to say something besides science is the best way to begin to understand God.


ALL religion?


Read what the Old Testament has to say about prophets and prophecy. To qualify as a true prophet, a prophet has to predict something specific AND that thing has to come true. If a prophet can't give some sign that he really is a prophet, he's considered a false prophet. So based on Biblical teachings about prophecy, are these predictions you mentioned something that would qualify as prophecy from a Christian perspective?

I also think that Biblical prophecies were always conditional. On more than one occasion, prophecies concerning various groups promised certain doom for them. It was prophesied that Babylon would be destroyed. When Babylon was invaded, they gave up without a fight. No blood was shed. And so the assumption regarding prophesies is that they WILL come true IF certain conditions are met (or not). Jonah was sent to Nineveh to prophecy against it, and God spared Nineveh. Does that make Jonah a false prophet? Well...sorta. Jonah was unimpressed that God showed mercy, and I suspect part of the problem was it made Jonah look like a fake.



I don't know what you mean about magazines, but yeah, I've seen some of the other things you're talking about. Frightening stuff. And all that means is even believers should maintain a healthy level of skepticism. I'm not part of a church that shuns anyone. If I became aware that my church did that, I'd leave. Ok...well, there've been some incidents at my former church. My wife was kicked out on a few occasions when she'd done nothing to deserve that. Once the deacons caught on to what was happening, they put a stop to it. My pastor and worship leaders have (almost) always had my back. When they fired my immediate supervisor (worship leader) after constantly antagonizing and bullying him, I knew it was time to leave. I still follow that church on their YouTube. It's a dumpster fire. My church now is far from perfect, but it's a lovely, welcoming place much like my old church was right at first. And if this new place starts going the same route as the old one, I'll leave it, too.


The Old Testament actually prohibits punishing children for the sins of their parents. In a separate passage, the Bible explains that when children follow in the sins of their parents, they do end up paying the consequences. That's almost just common sense. If a father commits murder and spends life in prison or ends up on death row, children are punished because they lose their father that way. Or if you grew up with a drug-addicted mother, since you've grown up seeing mom shoot heroin, you might not think it's all that big a deal and end up addicted to it yourself. Or if a society collectively ruins the economy of a nation, their children are the only one left to pick up the pieces. King Louis XIV famously said l'estate c'est moi, taking France to its cultural peak while enjoying a lavish lifestyle. The pattern of excesses that French monarchs were accustomed to led to horrible living conditions among the lower classes, which resulted in the end of the French monarchy and the loss of Marie Antoinette's head. Now, whether Louis XVI deserved what happened to him as the culmination of generations going down the wrong path might be up for debate, but nevertheless it happened. The Bible is not wrong in pointing out that, even though it prohibits punishing children for the sins of their parents, children do still bear the penalty either as a consequence or due to consequences of following the same path.


Meh...not really. When religious establishment elites approached Jesus and asked a question about divorce, Jesus acknowledges that divorce is LEGALLY permissible. Jesus goes on to explain that Moses put these laws on the books because God already knew the wickedness of mens' hearts. Divorce laws in the Old Testament acknowledge that given the cultural climate of the time that women had a weaker status than men. And yes, while divorce does serve to protect the interests of men, it also allowed for ways to protect WOMEN. Back then, it was undesirable to marry a woman if she couldn't prove her husband fathered her children, which meant divorced women were especially vulnerable. Laws were established governing the treatment of women to make a cultural institution livable. Women are much more free, are included in society, and are much better protected. We have different attitudes these days, also. And I think the Old Testament laws concerning women, divorce, and so on are no longer relevant. There's no way you COULD break those laws, even if you wanted to. What Jesus said is that who divorces a woman causes her to commit adultery. And the rational, scriptural basis for that is early in Genesis--that men and women were made for each other and that one man should have one wife. Over time and across cultures, and for various reasons, polygamy became normalized. So whether polygamy or divorce, men violate God's will of having only one partner and both fulfilling lifelong vows to each other.

The same applies to any principle. God's intent was never for anyone to be enslaved by another. There are laws concerning involuntary servitude. Laws concerning chattel do not approve of it. They simply recognize that if people will insist on enslaving others, the least they could do is give them humane treatment. Entire economies were built on slave labor. Laws regarding slaves made the institution livable for as long as it existed. In places where there has been a history of Christian presence, slavery has largely been eliminated.

Slavery also was a form of punishment within a nomadic society. You can't imprison anyone because there are no prisons. So rather than lock people up where they cannot contribute to society, they give them over to slave masters who have them work a specified period of time until the injury has been compensated. There other other rules, too, such as the celebration of Jubillees, that dictate exactly how long you are allowed to be enslaved.

But some "slaves" that are referenced in the Bible were more professional servants. The Bible calls for decent treatment of these. And over time people can erode the foundations of slavery until it disapears.

It's interesting that priests talk to spiritual beings all the time, and their followers do the same thing, and health professionals don't try to put them on antipsychotics. Yet to them, an individual doing basically the same thing in too autonomous a way needs medical intervention.

"You may not realize it, but you're starting from a point of view that ASSUMES that scientific evidence for God cannot exist. " - Oh? Just like there's no evidence that a dragon in my locker actually exists? But it might. I mean, where can we go with the assumptions that something unproven exists? I think it's better to stay close to scientific facts and not waste our life with believing in all these crazy things that may influence us negatively and create wars. I think the only reason why you're so eager to defend your own religion is because it's yours, not because it's any better logically or more likely to be true than the others.

"We are made in God's image, and part of that involves being blessed with a rational mind." - Why cant you see that he is a psychopath without a real moral code. Oh, are you just buying into the situation that he's perfect, all powerful and he can do anything he likes, despite us being alone in the world and dealing much more easily with our issues than this theoretical almighty man in the sky who supposedly loves us while pushing us to sin by giving us no chance to make a decision because of punishing us with burning for eternity? We have no choice in the matter, that's just like someone tells you theyll kill your family if you dont do what they want. What kinda warped sense of paternal figure must you have or brain washing to not see it?

In order for the supernatural to change the medium we are in, it's not scientifically possible for them to go unnoticed. There's no evidence of aliens, ghosts or gods. They all have this trait in common, but people are eager to believe it before any real scientific evidence. I wonder why choose the least likely explanation to something?

Nope, you're right there can be things that are unseen that exist, and that's a good point, but they can actually be scientifically tested and experienced with more than personal feelings, without the likeliness of other more likely possibilities that make the conclusion a mystery. Science can go wrong also, that's how we know it actually is resultful and it can improve. Science seeks to falsify its own suggestions. But starting to believe in ridiculous things on no grounds and despite the likeness that goes against it I would argue is not a belief that can be considered to have good backing or superiority to other similar beliefs.

Okay I will explain how prayers seemingly work, as well as how belief and miracles work in the case of believers. Think about this: the chance of an event or prediction happening is 50%, if it doesn't happen "it wasn't in god's plan" or "people sinned" but if it does happen, it suddenly becomes a miracle, even though normally that is normal to happen, by percentage chances, and everyone is in awe and praising their gods for it. It's an illusion, nothing magical really happened. Also this is very well noticed when there are tons of cases of deaths in a natural destruction such as a tsunami, people don't care about all those deaths, all the drowned babies and pregnant women, they seem to selectively see the survivor with her child. It instantly becomes a miracle God is the one given thanks for it, nevermind all the people who put money and effort into saving them and providing them shelters after.

By Magazines I mean the books the very dangerous level of trapping cult of Adventists use to do to spread the word, or in other words indoctrinate susceptible minds. It's one of today's worst cults for people to be in.

Hm, men violate God's will if they do not kill their neighbor in a stone throw if they sinned or as stated, did some work around their house on the holy day. Death punishment in barbaric times. Why did Jesus stand up to so many less considerable silly things and not this? I would also say there's a huge difference between someones dad going to prison for their own mistakes, as compared to you dying in horrid pain for 7 days because your dad didn't suck up to some god's order or belief. Huge difference. But yeah god is perfect and all praisable. Also, bigotry combined with slavery and multiple women, is a whole bunch of his is right, this isn't, and does not go well in today's times that's why so many religious people make these mistakes against humanity because otherwise it's "sin" while it's always been happening and it doesn't have to be harmful to parties. They didn't understand the concept of diversity and homophobia, neither of consent in relationships and their god didn't either to help them out of that mess. His suggestion to continue is really bad.

"They simply recognize that if people will insist on enslaving others, the least they could do is " - thats another proof of how mere humans, unholy, have made much more effort and change happen in the right direction than God with all his angels, powers and Jesus did. They did not contribute to any scientific aids we cure so many diseases today, they punished with disease because it was regarded as an uncontrollable aspect of life. And Noe's Ark could not have possibly existed, people just didnt know enough about the laws of the world to know it cant possibly be true. God always goes out of his way to complicate matters as if his miracles are that limited and explains them in ways nowadays you'll know are false explanations. God made the sky, there is no sky, there is an universe. Why doesnt God cut the crap and explain real things for a change if he's real? the obvious answer.

I notice you usually don't like to talk about things, even relationship debates which frustrate you, and there come times when you keep talking about ceasing to talk about said topic, or threatening to, so I don't want to inconvenience you emotionally, but I also don't want to be passive about the mass situation that's happening to people because of belief, or remain in a state of apathy like many people who refuse to debate because the challenge is too much or scary. I believe in debating. How else do people get better if they don't talk about things and challenge their own beliefs? I see you have initiative to do it and explain things generally, so I'm just gonna assume that it is something else the reason. You probably know, fear of confrontation is never a suggestion to go on in relationships when someone has something to say, although arguments shouldn't be excessive.

Let me put it another way: You’re basing your defense of science on the assumption of something that itself requires proof. From there you proceed to attack religion from a whole set of other assumptions. You cannot reasonably use something—whether religion or science—to prove ITSELF, yet science is guilty of this. I mean, if you were genuinely concerned about something being better logically, you wouldn’t have made a straw man argument here. I didn’t say there WAS scientific evidence for God. I said you’re starting from a position that assumes such evidence can not exist. To clarify: your position is that such evidence can’t POSSIBLY exist. I don’t assume that there can’t possibly be evidence for your dragon. I can’t see your locker or its contents, so I have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty. So whether I choose to believe you have a dragon will depend on the assumptions I make about you…and I have no REASON to make any assumptions.

As to defending religion, why should I defend it? If there is no God, as you assume, there’s nothing to defend.


Bolded text is a false premise. I could attempt to answer this, but the problem is that you are committed to a view that I don’t share. Plus..I think part of it is that you make assumptions about me based on what you think a “Christian” is rather than who I am as an individual. I’m often critical of religion, including those who call themselves Christian but possibly might not be, and I think many of the teachings about Jesus and the rest of the Bible are unduly influenced by an unreasonably negative view of the world and humanity. I am human before I am Christian, and I am Christian before I am Baptist. Catholics—and I’ve even heard priests complain about this—fall back so hard on church tradition they neglect studying scripture. One priest in particular made an impressive case to get us to convert because we know the Bible and basic theology so much better than most Catholics. So, as a systematic approach to religion, I have a greater appreciation for Southern Baptist theology than most others, but it’s not like I’ve never attended Mass or visited United Methodist or Presbyterian churches. I’m not a Calvinist, but I know Calvinism. I think predestination is an important point, but relatively minor. Asking if humans have free will or not is kinda like asking if we’re all part of a simulation. If we are in the simulation, 1) how do we know? and 2) Could we really escape if we were? And what difference does it make, really? My view is that God already knowing every outcome doesn’t mean we don’t have free will. God just knows every choice we would freely make. Typically, an opponent in this discussion would point out that means we aren’t truly free, to which I would say, “Yeah. And…? What’s your point?” The Bible outright says we aren’t free, at least not in any absolute sense.

And I have many more ideas besides that, some more aligned with Baptist theology than others. But that’s the beauty of being Baptist—there are trends in Southern Baptist theology, we are typically conservative and evangelical, but being conservative and evangelical isn’t something that is set in stone. There are things many of us agree on, but individual churches are autonomous. United Methodists and Catholics don’t get that luxury.

So to answer your question…why can’t I see it? Because I’m perfectly capable of making up my own mind. I don’t accept your premise. And that means I don’t see it because it’s not there. There’s nothing to see. The whole “bully parent” idea—well, I have children, I’ve disciplined them as often and to the extent as was appropriate. My oldest two think their little brother gets away with murder, whereas they’d get the hammer dropped on them if they got out of line. I point out that after a certain age I stopped punishing all of them, that their sibling watched them and followed their example and never got in trouble quite the same way, and that when he DID get out of line that THEY always stepped in and corrected him. Now that we have a one-year-old, the oldest swears we spoil her. I point out that she’s a toddler and we never laid a hand on ANY of our kids below a certain age. We believe that basic discipline has to be learned by 3 years, and by a certain age certain forms of punishment are no longer effective or appropriate. I’ve noticed that sociopathic children must be TAUGHT remorse. Sometimes kids will only respond positively out of fear until they are mature enough to understand respect—making the shift from being afraid of what dad might do if I disobey to doing this/not doing that simply because I want to do what is RIGHT for its own sake. Because I love goodness and truth for their own sake and for the benefits to me of loving truth and only doing good things.

The “bully parent” view is based on the false premise that goodness and truth are only measured from the child’s perspective. To accuse God of being sociopathic is no less petulant than having a meltdown after not getting ice cream before dinner. The Ancient Greek view of theology held that the gods are not unified in thought or action and that the role of humans was as the playthings and entertainment of the gods. We have no freedom or control, and to appease one god is to offend the other. Either way, we’re screwed. The Christian view of God positions humanity as created by God for God’s purpose. So in that sense the Ancient Greek view applies as well—we are all ultimately slaves of God whether we accept that or not. The difference is the level of importance gods place on humanity. Humans tend to be mostly insignificant and exist primarily for entertainment and to enable the gods’ vanity. But occasionally, and only rarely, humans rise above themselves and display powers that are the envy of the gods. Gods punish the insolent, but gods also act as servants and guardians of the faithful. Greek religion creates this mentality that gods CAN be controlled and manipulated through human action, so it pays to fear the gods and perform all the right rituals and be a good person. Then it becomes a matter of who is faithful enough, who is good enough to earn the favor of the gods and bring them within human control.

God presents the opposite view—that no god worthy of faith and obedience can possibly be controlled by human action. God favors who He favors. So rather than merely hoping for gods to leave us alone and live our lives unnoticed by the gods, we can all live our best life right here, right now, only expecting the best, and achieving the best because, whether we succeed or fail, we all end up in the same place. Whether our lives are miserable or joyful, whether we greedy or grateful, whether we are punished or blessed, well, all that is up to us.

So I reject the bully parent hypothesis. I think God’s progressive revelation to us goes against the bully parent idea, and I think God’s revelation in the past has been measured against what is good, appropriate, effective, and necessary for us to understand Him. If God withholds judgment, it is out of His mercy and compassion for us. God’s patience is only limited by the time God gives us, and in that is a tremendous amount of freedom.



Ok, so what is science, really? Why are you so certain there’s NOT evidence? I don’t waste time arguing evidence because I have a different view of evidence, which I’ll explain shortly. But my point here is that you are making unreasonable assumptions.

Now, regarding evidence—

“Science” is evidence-dependent. You observe and draw conclusions, and that’s what science is at perhaps its most basic, fundamental level. The problem of evidence is it is not consistently, universally agreed on what evidence, nor is there a consistent, universally agreed on way of knowing what conclusions SHOULD be drawn. I don’t believe in a geocentric universe. But based on observable evidence, it is possible to conclude that everyone else orbits the sun and otherwise revolves around the earth. Heck, you could use evidence to support flat earth. So which one is right and how do you know? And with so much evidence in favor of God, how can you deny that God exists?

And don’t bother answering that last question, I already know what you’ll say. I know all the classic back-and-forth arguments, and they’re all boring. My point is that when it comes to things that are supposedly unseen, perhaps it’s better to ask why you can’t see God? I think you know God exists. It’s not about really whether you believe in God, but more about what you want, about wishful thinking. So just like someone can point to evidence for flat earth or evidence for black holes or evidence for whatever, you can move all kinds of goalposts to support the lie that God doesn’t exist. It’s easier to comfort yourself for rejecting God by simply repeating to yourself that there is no God.

Maybe that’s your experience, maybe it’s not…I don’t know you, so I can’t say. Discourse, even scientific discourse, has become narrative-driven, not evidence driven. It’s insanely hypocritical that someone says “anecdotes aren’t evidence.” Ok, so for the purpose of scientific study and the need to repeat experiments and observe similar results, I understand what that phrase means. I’m not suggesting anyone rely on anecdotal evidence. The problem with saying things like that is that it denies lived experience. There’s no evidence for it; therefore, it doesn’t exist. And when people have lived through things or experienced certain things, it is unreasonable to say that people did not live through it or experience it. Thus, what is real or what makes something evidence is whatever fits the narrative. If, indeed, you have your reality and I have mine, then my reality is no less real than yours. Pretty much whatever I say exists does so for no greater reason than I said it and made it real.

Or you can simply reject the narrative.

But that also means that you’re stuck with unreasonable assumptions. If reliance on evidence amounts to irrational circular reasoning, that means your conclusions are not really based on evidence. Your conclusions are based on faith. And if scientific conclusions are faith-based, then what you choose to believe is not more reasonable than what I choose to believe.

And so the question has nothing to do with evidence. What do you choose to believe, and why? Not “why, where is the evidence?” but why from your own experience and faith.


What qualifies as ridiculous? At one point in history Galileo’s ideas were ridiculous. To Christian, the idea of “no God” is ridiculous!



So prayers only work if YOU say they work.

I’m partially joking. I know good and well that’s not what you said. But there is a temptation to say prayers/miracles cannot happen because we never see them happen the way we want them to happen.

Don’t get me started on Adventists. I think there might be some genuinely saved people among Adventists, but similar to Catholics I think they teach their people some deceptive things. Adventist and JW prophecies are known to be false, so I’d warn people to be very careful in choosing these churches. JW dogma is absolutely NEVER up for debate or discussion, and they isolate you until you have no friends outside JW. You lose your job, family, etc. when you’re disfellowshipped. So if one could debate and say, eh, I don’t think you can translate that from Greek/Hebrew, or that isn’t mentioned in scripture at all, then I’d say there’s really no issue. But both groups have a way of insisting you only believe what comes out of their main office or their churches. With Adventists, I do believe that Saturday is really the only “proper” Sabbath. The bigger problem with that, though, is that Sabbath celebrations are trivial matters next to one’s salvation. So it’s highly suspect when any church or group gets hung up on details. I’m not a fan of Calvinist theology. But I would be highly annoyed and suspicious of anyone who insists you must believe in Free Will or you’re going to hell. I don’t oppose the practice of speaking in tongues, but the insistence of some Pentecostals that you’re not actually saved if you don’t speak in tongues is outright heresy. I do believe that the Holy Spirit can enable speaking in tongues and others can understand you—it was the first evidence that the Holy Spirit had been sent. I do believe you can express yourself in unintelligible ways when you are so overcome by the Spirit that words fail to describe what can’t be spoken. I believe that. But when someone claims that they are speaking in a “spirit language,” I immediately want to know where in the Bible it says that there even is such a thing and why believers should use it. If it’s conditional for salvation, I’m heading for the door. Assemblies of God have a very chill attitude towards that based on what I’ve seen, so if I ever became a Pentecostal I’d go in that direction. United Pentecostals teach Oneness theology, however, that I find unbiblical. I’d be careful about which Presbyterian church I joined, but they aren’t all bad. I’m less attracted to Anglican and Catholic traditions. Again, it’s getting caught up on minutiae that disturbs me. All churches do it to a point, I guess, but some to a greater degree than others. I don’t ever see myself going the Adventist route. That seems to be a bit much for me.

Miracles are only evidence or affirmation of something about God He wants us to know. Biblical miracles are not often all that profound, but do make it clear to the faithful God is trying to tell them something. Miracles and prayers end up making God out to be some genie in a bottle. We serve the purpose of the Creator, not the other way around, so it’s useful for people to understand miracles as serving God’s purpose rather than our own. It’s not a miracle for a doctor to remove a brain tumor, for example—it is only that God allows a surgeon the knowledge and skill to operate on the brain. But as a sign that a person is sent by God to reach people for Christ, it is necessary for people to have affirmation that someone is sent by God by having that person do things only God can empower people to do.

In contemporary Western society, signs are unnecessary—we’ve already had all the signs and miracles anyone should ever need. Besides, if miracles were performed, who’d believe them? If miracles were performed in the Old and New Testaments and people didn’t believe, why should we expect anyone to believe them now?

I do think that miracles and signs still happen, and I’ve experienced things like that firsthand. However, the whole SCIENCE!! ! and EVIDENCE!! ! narrative doesn’t allow for anything besides its own concerns to be considered real.

Also, I think most people probably misunderstand the point of prayer. God already knows our needs. God is already supplying those needs. Prayer is never about God needing to hear us, but rather about our need to be heard. The therapeutic power of prayer and meditation have been documented, btw.





Ok, but now you are imposing a creation-oriented view of morality on a supernatural Creator. It’s like toddlers dictating to parents how things are going to go around the house. The universe was created by God for God. I’m not going to defend any position on homosexuality or other related moral issues, but I will point out that there is tremendous irony in adopting a Christian moral sense for most areas of life only to criticize an aversion to homosexuality as “bigotry.”



How do you know that the progression towards ending slavery wasn’t the best path towards doing so considering the natural wicked tendencies of man to enslave others? What’s more powerful, giving man all the answers, or empowering man to rely on God to reveal things at the most ideal time? If the Babylonians had gotten the nuke in ancient times, I doubt humanity would be as blessed as we are. On the other hand, nukes were developed at a time of peak worldwide war and violence, leading mankind to learn firsthand the consequences of such awesome power—and the humility to withhold using it in war to its fullest potential. God seemed to grant us all of His power to destroy; we learned that we are not ready for it.



It’s frustrating when there’s no point to accomplish in a debate. Case in point, and this time I mean this as more than rhetorical question, if God showed right now and met you face to face, and it happened in such a way that you knew He was God and you couldn’t deny it, how would you respond? What would you say to God? If someone has made up their mind and refuses to change at all, there’s no point in trying to convince them, to study, to regurgitate all the classic apologetical arguments, etc., although lately I’ve developed a whole new respect for the Ontological Argument after going most of my life largely rejecting it.

For me, I feel like it’s more worthwhile to speak to those more genuinely interested in becoming a Christian. For everything else, it’s turned into a lack of time and lower sense of urgency compared with everything else going on in my life right now. I’m fairly sure I won’t have the same job after my current contract is up, so I’m concerned about taking the initiative rather than deal with yet another “non-renewed” spot on my résumé. So the more I have to work and promote my students, the less time I have for WP. I just got back from an overnight trip with my students, so while I’m shifting gears I have a little time to discuss things. I’ll probably be away from WP for a while after today while I’m working on another big project.

But it’s also about the actual role of evidence in knowing anything. People who demand evidence are rarely actually inclined to actually accept evidence. Also, science can afford to have an “open canon.” You don’t have any need for meaningful certainty. So if you don’t want to believe something outside your narrative, all you have to do is produce counter-evidence or counter-arguments that affirm your own narrative. For Christians, this isn’t very useful or helpful. So I believe in Jesus, right? And someone comes along with an evidence-based claim regarding the historical Jesus, which obviously doesn’t fit my understanding of Jesus, then I’m compelled to abandon my faith. Until someone else comes up with a counter argument or theory that Jesus was the Son of God and not just an historical figure. And someone shows evidence Jesus never actually existed, so now I’m compelled to deny Jesus. This back-and-forth can go for all eternity, but perhaps I take Pascal’s Wager preferring the least eternal consequences for believing rather than unbelief. Ultimately, I’m going to choose to believe in Jesus or something else. If I choose to NOT believe, then that choice is driven by faith that Jesus is NOT the way, the truth, and the life. It’s faith that there is no Jesus or God or whatever, or faith that even if there is God and Jesus that they are irrelevant. If I choose to believe, it’s obviously based on faith, not evidence. And the difference between me and someone who screams EVIDENCE is that I have no insecurities in admitting that it’s faith.

The important point to consider is that it’s never about evidence, never has been, and never will be. Evidence can be denied. I can cite evidence for God and Christ all day long and you could deny that it’s evidence simply because it was mentioned in relation to God. I can show you have an unreasonable, anti-supernatural bias, and it won’t matter. There’s no human argument without a counter argument, no piece of evidence that couldn’t be shown to prove the opposite of your interpretation. At the root of everything you and I claim to know is faith. And since you and I seem to be on opposite sides of the faith debate, only one of us could even possibly be right. Since that is true, then it follows that nothing can be considered knowledge unless it is revealed by God. For something to be revealed by God requires faith.

There is a judeo-christian bias in terms religious in terms of what is considered "suitable". Surely this is subjective?

Then why did you ask the question?

Is there a reason that it MUST be subjective? Subjective in the sense that what makes it suitable only exists in the mind?

If our assumption is that the concept of a right or true religion is irrelevant and we accept all religions as candidates for a suitable religion, then it's just a matter of what individuals are most comfortable with. I speak in favor of Christianity primarily because I do believe it's the only true religion, but secondarily it's what I know and what I'm comfortable with. I'm not sure most people would answer that there's a better religion for you but they themselves don't follow it. That wouldn't make much sense. But I could say that in terms of Christianity and various denominations, Catholicism and other liturgical churches follow a strict order of service with prayers or songs that are the same from one mass or service to the next. So many people find comfort in the routine and ritual, while others find it suffocating. On the other hand, other churches are less structured and make the praise and worship time more like an EDM event. They'll even post seizure warnings and tell you not to stare directly at the lasers. In terms of who is right, Catholics or Pentecostals, well...I mean, that's going to be largely up to the individual worshiper. Neither is exactly "wrong," but there's a fine line between "wrong" and "wrong for me." Now, if you get into actual theology, there are greater gaps between churches. You're simply walking lines between theology and style, and that's going to make a difference.

I'm not aware of other religions that are quite so "commercialized" and marketed like Christianity, religions that present them as a sort of boutique experience the way Christians do. I'm teaching medieval music in music appreciation right now, and it's fascinating to see just how deep the Church influenced secular music. Minnesangers such as Vogelweide might capture the entire gospel in a single song, like "Palastinalied." Another songwriter in the Canticles of St. Mary sang about the Blessed Virgin's miracles in the story of the dancing porkchop (Cantiga 159, I think it was). Outside the church these musicians were communicating through music in the vernacular rather than Church Latin.

So I think as a whole Christianity in all its forms at least makes the most effort at being accessible. I don't see that with other religions, but someone better versed in, say, Eastern religions could easily point out examples of non-Christian religions doing that. I know that traditional Korean religion is a kind of mixed bag, and being a fan of K-drama I've seen elements of Korean folk tales and mythology woven into modern storytelling. As to whether I think Korean myth is the way to go as a suitable relgion...well, setting aside what I DO believe, it's just a matter of what you mean by suitable.

gOING BY THAT THEORY YOU COULDNT TELL IF THE OTHER RELIGIONS ARE FALSE, AS YOU STATE, OR INVISIBLE PURPLE DRAGONS ARE FLYING AROUND YOU AS WE SPEAK

Sorry caps

By denying science in favor of any idea thats not proven and is far from anything thats proven and known in society at this advancement point you're not getting any closer to the truth. The book clearly goes way back in the past with the teachings and none of them are accurate to what we know today except basis of morale which some rules are missing from and punishments for them are warped.

God is actually the manchild who would meltdown if hes not getting icecream, like he often killed pregnant women and babies and kittens in the past with the flood, and he had to realize it was wrong and apologize to the actual survivors throwing perfectly scientifically explained rainbows, making him less than all-knowing because he didnt expect to regret his choices, which contradicts what he states about himself.

Depends what point you're trying to accomplish in a debate, which is what gives you the progress line, does it have to change the full religion of the person in one post or in one week, or ever? Does it have to make them see some new things? People can agree on some things, and learn from each other.

I could much rather believe that there's no god, since the evidence for it is very lacking and opposite in nature, and human brains have evolved spiritual thinking, but I'd say animals tend to have fears of the unknown and ideas too.

The reason why science and medicine works much more than prayers is because science does work. Science cuts off the false ideas and is not bad at it at all. Otherwise doctors would give up medecine and just prescribe prayers if they healed disease or fixed any draining pipe. We are very much alone it's just too noticeable to me.

"God allows a surgeon the knowledge and skill to operate on the brain" - is like saying, God doesnt exist, and both good and bad things happen. It doesnt require the existence of a creator being, or allowing good or bad things to happen.

Atheist doctors and scientists perform just as well, doesnt have to be Godsend to do something in the world. It is not Godly powers, it is just humanity. Being human allows you to do these things.

Chants dont have to have direction to a god to help people. So it's beyond the god's powers of healing, it's just positive words help people heal and feel better. It's the reason I like doing "magic" witch chants.

"How do you know that the progression towards ending slavery wasn’t the best path towards doing so" I truly believe the amighty if he cared could have snapped his fingers and ended it, or not "allowed" it to begin in the first place, before killing father's kids for their sins. I just think politically this would have been a higher priority than punishing specific mishaps or torturing their children.

"I know all the classic back-and-forth arguments, and they’re all boring" - Haha, sometimes the truth is more boring than paranormal things, and less scary. People like being thrilled in life, it seems. I have other thrills though than superstitious beliefs, even though I indulge in their very creative art.

"produce counter-evidence" - okay well evidence is not personal, it's done by specialized people in specialized methods. It's otherwise not evidence. Even specialized scientists can have methods who give a wrong payoff because theyve not paid attention to all the necessary alteratives, which can later be disproven by additional multiple scienctific studies that were done right. The method is important and you can tell even as a normie sometimes if you think about it, what should have been tested on top to make sure it's not just a result based on a certain lifestyle of people, for example.

"Science doesn’t allow for anything besides its own concerns to be considered real." - Thats how you know you're on the right path, you have to have a way to prove your beliefs otherwise you're speaking nonsense. Yes, it's frustrating to be lacking knowledge and as humans we are blind so to say, but for a blind man to go by what they can feel is a good idea rather than for what might ever exist or come in front of them if they dont know the area theyre in. What if theyre not in a dog park and are in a supermarket, theres not gonna be dogs there. But they can better tell what there is if they "look" at what can be distinguished in practice. Until there is real evidence of a god that is not likely to be disproven, I'm not going to believe it, and I really think that evidence is never gonna arise, because the books are complete nonsense. I'm questioning the state of mind of the person who wrote it or what drugs they were on, but given there was no science and books were so hard to obtain they probably thought it was really good.

One thing I hear a lot is if something’s not biblical then there’s no evidence it’s there. But what about witnesses that have spiritual experiences that are supported by the Bible? The Bible tells us what we really need to know about Christianity and it’s spiritualism. What’s important, what really counts. In some online sermons, especially the ones that involve the Holy Spirit, my questions and concerns are sometimes answered or mentioned without me asking them out loud in the chats. Sometimes it’s even pre recorded sermons and it still happens. Does the Bible say what happens in sermons on YouTube can happen to those watching at home? No, let alone that YouTube didn’t exist yet in those days. does it mention that everything’s possible through God? Yes. Another example is It doesn’t say the exact sentence “God Jesus and the Holy Spirit are 3 beings in 1” but when you put the pieces (scriptures) together, that’s how you find the answer. also people coined new words after the Bible. But if you have some spiritual experience that no one else had that’s still backed up by scripture, does that mean it never happened?

I'd imagine the religion most suitable for autistics would probably have a lot of lore that needs to be understood before one can get too invested in the property, probably would need to encourage routine, it would need to have gods who respect personal space, ceremonies that aren't triggering to sensory issues and some merch to signal to other followers about a shared interest.

Jedi might work.