At what point would you super-relgious types admit that you're wrong?

[AFPilot]

Most of the functions typically assigned to the soul (memory, self-awareness, cognition, etc) have an obvious dependence on the brain. I can affect these functions by directly messing with your brain. The default conclusion from this is that when your brain can not function properly, you will no longer experience memories, self-awareness, or cognition. Along with drugs and brain damage, death is also on the list of things that leads to your brain ceasing function. So I see no reason to suspect there's an afterlife. People are predisposed/programmed/eager to believe in an afterlife and thus subconsciously apply a different standard of logic when contemplating the issue.

[Saturn V]

Reaver, your life is a joke.

Enjoy.

[Facetious]

I never edit things I post well after I post them (I always do the split second after I post and read the post over), it would have made it really confusing to read our discussion if I'd edited what I said.

Anyway, it was a misunderstanding. Exactly.

[Reaver]

The tone might appear to be somewhat similar (although I've said numerous times that I didn't mean it that way), but the format is obviously completely different. If the format was the same, I would have asked "Why do you think religious people suck?"

I don't feel so strongly about anything that if I misunderstood what someone meant by saying something, that after they said "that isn't what I meant, I meant something else" I would still be mad at them for what I initially thought they meant. Don't you think that if I meant to insult religious people I would be up front about it now? What would be the point in me trying to spend all this time explaining that I meant something else if what I was really trying to say was "WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS ARE YOU GUYS STUPID OR WHAT LOL"

As far as I can tell, no matter what I say, the only thing you respond to is what you think I meant by my initial post, and my comments about being a moderator, so there's not really much point in continuing this discussion. You didn't criticize my beliefs, but you did generalize me and shut me down, instead of giving me a chance to explain what I actually meant. To me, that's just as bad.

If you didn't feel that way why didn't you edit it?

Edit: the point is moot, the topic is dead, there was a misunderstanding.

[Facetious]

I couldn't have said it any better, "Reaver's point is that this thread really isn't much different from Sumpson's "Why do you think TW staff sucks?" thread, really. The questions and subjects are different, but the tone and format of the question are identical."

The tone might appear to be somewhat similar (although I've said numerous times that I didn't mean it that way), but the format is obviously completely different. If the format was the same, I would have asked "Why do you think religious people suck?"

I don't feel so strongly about anything that if I misunderstood what someone meant by saying something, that after they said "that isn't what I meant, I meant something else" I would still be mad at them for what I initially thought they meant. Don't you think that if I meant to insult religious people I would be up front about it now? What would be the point in me trying to spend all this time explaining that I meant something else if what I was really trying to say was "WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS ARE YOU GUYS STUPID OR WHAT LOL"

As far as I can tell, no matter what I say, the only thing you respond to is what you think I meant by my initial post, and my comments about being a moderator, so there's not really much point in continuing this discussion. You didn't criticize my beliefs, but you did generalize me and shut me down, instead of giving me a chance to explain what I actually meant. To me, that's just as bad.

[Vykromond]

your losing the point of an analogy.

FYI: you're

[Reaver]

I still think there's a huge difference between "at what point WOULD you admit you're wrong" and "at what point WILL you admit you're wrong." I said the former.

Reaver, now that I'm done defending myself, this is how I feel about your reaction to this thread: Only one person completely flew off the handle as a result of this thread, most other people at least seemed to understand that I wasn't trying to insult everyone, and answered my question to the best of their ability instead of hurling personal insults at me and questioning my ability to do a job completely unrelated to my views on religion. 404 questions peoples' politics almost daily, in fact, in a much more harsh tone, and nobody questions his ability to moderate (NOT that they should.)

Your assumption that I was just "attacking" all religious people is about as close as you can get to attacking my lack of faith, since, as you said, you can't really challenge what I believe. You said yourself that you viewed me normally as an intelligent, reasonable member of these forums (if you didn't view me that way, I'd understand, but you said you did) but instead of reading the thread and thinking "man, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about in this instance, he probably doesn't understand that the way he phrased that question could be viewed as insulting, I'm going to let him know in a nice way" you ASSUMED that I must have made the thread for the purposes of insulting people. Did you make that assumption because your views on agnostics/athiests are that all of us think less of people that are religious? If that's the case, the things you said to me are far more prejudiced and insulting than anything I've said in this thread. Of course, I extend you the courtesy that I wished you'd extended to me. I know that you don't know what it's like to think the way I do, and I understand that you probably really were that offended and just having an emotional reaction. Think about it, though.

You'll have to excuse me for "completely flying off the handle" when you've mockingly joked about what my life is mostly about. I'm sure if I had said anything that you felt as strongly about in a similar fashion you would have reacted similarly. I can assure you that whatever I've said that insulted you hasn't insulted me nearly to the degree to which you have me. As for 404 questioning people's politics, he might do so, but he does it with a generally objective view, in my opinion. Again, this all goes back to the tone and way in which you tried to find your answers. I don't assume that you're attacking all religions. If I said that you're attacking all religions then I apologize, but you've certainly made a mockery of my beliefs whether you intended to or not . Whether you can see it now or not, the whole concept of this thread is a mockery. Exactly what purpose you intended to make the thread for, I couldn't know. Regardless of what's said here you could be lying or you could be telling the truth, I can't know your intentions, but I do know how I felt after it was said, and I can tell you this with complete sincerity, I'm generally a difficult person to offend. There's only one thing that could bother me on these forums enough that I'd write this much and that is the discussion at hand. I can completely understand if you want to know more, or if you actually want to know the answer to this question, though this wasn't and isn't my feeling after reading the thread title and intro. But if you need to do it, and you're going to add a negative connotation to it then you'll find yourself offending people. Religion can be discussed, and even criticized civilly when the proper tone is taken.

As I said before, I can completely respect that you're agnostic. I'd never start any threads questioning why you believe what you believe and if you one day found your beliefs not to be accurate. I'm certainly not telling you to do so. I couldn't have said it any better, "Reaver's point is that this thread really isn't much different from Sumpson's "Why do you think TW staff sucks?" thread, really. The questions and subjects are different, but the tone and format of the question are identical."

Edit: I don't question your ability to close threads, etc. I was simply implying that I personally expected the moderators to at least be a little more considerate, especially around a subject so important to some.

[Facetious]

I still think there's a huge difference between "at what point WOULD you admit you're wrong" and "at what point WILL you admit you're wrong." I said the former.

Reaver, now that I'm done defending myself, this is how I feel about your reaction to this thread: Only one person completely flew off the handle as a result of this thread, most other people at least seemed to understand that I wasn't trying to insult everyone, and answered my question to the best of their ability instead of hurling personal insults at me and questioning my ability to do a job completely unrelated to my views on religion. 404 questions peoples' politics almost daily, in fact, in a much more harsh tone, and nobody questions his ability to moderate (NOT that they should.)

Your assumption that I was just "attacking" all religious people is about as close as you can get to attacking my lack of faith, since, as you said, you can't really challenge what I believe. You said yourself that you viewed me normally as an intelligent, reasonable member of these forums (if you didn't view me that way, I'd understand, but you said you did) but instead of reading the thread and thinking "man, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about in this instance, he probably doesn't understand that the way he phrased that question could be viewed as insulting, I'm going to let him know in a nice way" you ASSUMED that I must have made the thread for the purposes of insulting people. Did you make that assumption because your views on agnostics/athiests are that all of us think less of people that are religious? If that's the case, the things you said to me are far more prejudiced and insulting than anything I've said in this thread. Of course, I extend you the courtesy that I wished you'd extended to me. I know that you don't know what it's like to think the way I do, and I understand that you probably really were that offended and just having an emotional reaction. Think about it, though.

[Blueblaze]

w/e, im done arguing about this.

I don't mean any irreverancy, even though I understand the point you are trying to get accross, but it is of uttermost importance to understand my situation in an accurate lighting. This can be applied to Face's creation of this thread as well, you don't ask me, "What if everything you believe in is fake, a waste, hows that gonna make you feel, pretty bad huh? Tell me how bad it'll feel" when my faith in Jesus Christ is my ever being. Without the hope of Christ, there is no hope for this world, and there is no hope for me. You don't make decisions on who you will date and eventually marry, how you will school and train your children, where and when you will work, what and where you will eat and drink, where you will go to for entertainment, what you will read, watch, or what you will take enjoyment in, and how you will spend every second of your time based on, What if your wrong. For those atheists, you believe there is no after-life, but when you believe in Christ, and His work on cross, you don't go through life as you would, when you know eternity is at stake. Not that you have to earn your salvation, or work to keep it, but you are given it by the grace of God. If you understand the importance of Christ, you understand the importance of time, every second people go to hell, not for a day, not for a season, but eternity. If you know sin, you know how words cannot describe the utter horror of hell. And, if you know the love that God has given to all mankind, you know that you would reflect that love to the world, not that you would desire to be with and like them, but you desire to save them from that utter horror, despite whatever rejection you face. All that is within me sees this desire and this passion of my Savior.

[thesearcher]

w/e, im done arguing about this.

[Blueblaze]

your losing the point of an analogy. Im sure you have sat through hundreds of sermons in which similar analogies were used, i doubt you complained to the speaker.

The analogy is unacceptable, in the standards you brought up, you cannot compare religion to a football team. For me, my belief in God encompasses my every fiber of being and plays a role (should anyway) in -every- decision I make. To be dedicated to Christ, you must crucify yourself, your selfish desires, and take up the life of Christ, living in service eternally in debt to Him. Now, I love my Florida Gators football team, and even though they won the BCS title game, they will never encompass my every fiber of existence and will never receive my dedication beyond all things of earth.

[thesearcher]

Edit: thesearcher your analogy doesn't work fine. People don't rely on their football team to make sure their kids are safe. They don't pray to their football team. They don't believe that their football team will give them an eternal heaven in the afterlife. Lastly, there is proof that their football team exists.

your losing the point of an analogy. Im sure you have sat through hundreds of sermons in which similar analogies were used, i doubt you complained to the speaker.

[Zerzera]

The beginning sets the scene in heaven with God & Satan (note: Satan is in heaven, not locked away in hell). The end is God giving a recap justifying what He did and that should be interpreted as thoughts from God.

That's basically the part I was talking about.

[Zerzera]

I don't think it's possible for a human being to be religious and not having asked himself this question. If only it were that easy to have 100% faith all the time.
Everyone has some beliefs and/or doubts, and it's insightful to see how other people cope with this.
The thread-name is a bit (c)rude, but the topic itself is interesting. Does your faith allow any doubt? Would you live your life differently if you had more doubt? Are you content with the life your religion tells you to live.

I can say that I am not very happy with being atheist, I can't figure out why I would need to live my life. Having some sort of goal in the afterlife -without having to wonder about the meaning of the afterlife, because everything will be clear then- probably makes life more enjoyable.

[HeavenSent]

If you look at it that way the entire bible is babblings of man and should be ignored. But if you believe in what's written this, to me, touches most about what God is and why life then would be like it is.

Where Job's friends are telling him to curse God for letting this happen to him is most of the book and should not be interpreted as thoughts from God. I think what should be gleaned from that is Job's perseverance in his faith in spite of his friend's opinions. (Like some of you guys on this forum) The beginning sets the scene in heaven with God & Satan (note: Satan is in heaven, not locked away in hell). The end is God giving a recap justifying what He did and that should be interpreted as thoughts from God.

I could ask you instead why we are born unequal to each other,

This life is meaningless from the physical perspective. It's all written out & pre-planned. We're all just playing parts to make this re-creation of prior events an example & testimony to the ways of God's adolescent heavenly children. Some people choose their life on earth before they're born. To challenge themselves and/or to humble themselves. Some are born because they want to see what it's like to be big, strong, rich & handsome. Some are given a life to take and accept it as part of their love, honor & service to the Lord. Some couples & groups are born to be families or friends to help each other get through this world. Our relationship to God in this world, for the most part, is according to our relationship with Him before we were born.

how easy is it to live a good life when you are raised by fair Christians, and how hard to live a good life when you are raised in hardship.
Is God really keeping a score and would you need to live by the commandments if your life won't seem to let you? If you are rich that will be a burden to your soul?
Basically all it says to me is that you only have to keep the faith in God and you will be saved, no matter what you do. What's that? Catholicism?

How easy is it to live a good life without God as a factor? Everyone basically has the same types of obsticles in life. The difference from one to another is how they think. How do they see themselves in their situation. Are they the 'survivor', the 'victim', the 'conqueror', or the 'careless' types? Now add God to these variables and you have the same as you had without, just add faithful to each.. i.e. faithful survivor. The thing is, for the true & faithful believer that has a real relationship with God, they're never alone. For the Christian, they have to trust & accept in everything accomplished on the Cross as sufficient to all their requirements into heaven. For the non-Christian, they should at least realize that God is Love and make it a point to share God's love. For the athiest as well should let love & compassion rule their lives. As long as we occupy the flesh, we're all sinners. Everyone. Once we're done with this world, we can go back to being who we really are... only with a great lesson behind us.