But you're ASSUMING (and we all know what that does- makes an A$$ out of Adam) that the person in question has started out thinking and/or believing that there is a supreme being. If they do not, then their conclusion is logical. Your logic is excellent an example of fallacious (yeah that's called spell check!) logic because you surmise that one MUST start out believing what YOU do. If there were a supreme being that did create humanity in it's image then it created us to be analogous to it- or as close as it could get us to be.
Take birth for example. "God" does not do this. We do- this supreme being is very scientific for it supposedly created the first humans. It may have created the souls of every human but it did not have any part in making any human after the first two. This is because of sex, all the components wherein conception is envolved and then birth. Heck, "God" created us to have sex- to make more of us- therefore becoming like it (as close as "God" could get without making more supreme beings like itself).

another example is with a child. when a child continuously acts up and is behaving in a bad way. Its the parents fault for not handling the situation, the parents created the child, so that just shows that the parent isnt perfect. which makes sense. but to have a almighty powerful god, creator of the worlds and universe and every thing he makes is perfect lol, if he created us, why do we do imperfect things, lie, steal, murder, kill, destroy, hate etc, free will yes, but to religious people who created us.....if I was a perfect so called god I would have created my creation without those imperfections and negativity in the first place. you find loop holes in every system known to man, simply because they were created by man.

people arent perfect. people make mistakes. people have free will. so since we arent perfect, religious people say we are made from god. so therefore god created imperfections. if you made a robot then that robot was programed to be a certain way, if that robot does things a certain way its because of the way it was programed.

You are quite correct. Good logical thinking. I hope you post often.

Matthew 13:49-50
"So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."

[22:18, KJV] "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Burn baby burn?

you cant blame tv or movies for these things just sick people who already have violent tendencies. I've been a fan of horror and very heavy "dangerous" music since I was 14. Even then it was just music and all of my friends the same way. Just because sick people are atracted to it doesnt put it at fault.

Satan is an example of why there is no "Free Will" ....no matter what Satan does even if Satan accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior even if Satan decide to make God appear wrong by not participating in any evil or war ...God will force Satan into the battle of Armageddon in order to fullfill the prophecy of Revelations ...Satan has no choice but to do this because it is God that control his actions

this is why the only logical reason why an "all powerful" God would allow evil to exist ...is because the God is evil

Also, If God is "all powerful" and Satan really is the enemy, God would not permit him to exist.

This makes no sense to me Eljay. If by quantity you mean good vs. bad deeds, then you agree with my issue - as it was expressed. Are you considering 'pride' to be a bad thing? Is one wrong for being proud of doing right?

None are justified because no one is subject to what is rightfully fair?

What does that even mean?

Eljay, I believe you're taking Paul's words completely out of context. The wages of sin is spiritual death. When one gains the enlightenment of spirit they do so from avoiding to continue thinking and therefore acting in the same manner(s) which led up to the need for the enlightenment to begin with. The hope which is gained from seeking 'better' is gained from within. It requires the removal of that which blocks the 'light'. Before whatever that is can be removed, it must first be identified as blocking the light.

The value of time has nothing to do with fairness, at least not as I am considering what is to be called 'fair'. If by the above you mean if 'God' would punish man immediately for his sins then there would be no one mature enough to pro-create, then I must ask...

All sins are to be held as equally punishable in terms of the punishment itself? I suspect that this is what you're getting at, or what grounds your response here. I also believe that that is as immoral as hell. Pun intended.

I, as a loving parent, would never punish all misbehavior(s) with equal force. I certainly would not punish my children for modeling my own behavior(s). After all, they learned it from me... right?

Saturnine....what's actually is delusional is for someone to log into a debating forum to complain about people debating

surely even in your life outside the forum you express your opinions to others which may differ from their opinion ...

Good to see you Eljay!

I hope life is finding you well, my friend.

I think you have misunderstood my meaning, and if that is the case, it probably is because of how I wrote that response. I agree with you completely that one cannot be saved and continue to live and do the things that they know in their heart are wrong. It just does not work that way. The book of James is one which I hold fond in memory, therefore it was interesting for you to suggest it. That being said...

The way that I wrote that may indeed sem like I was implying that one could continue doing wrong after being 'saved' and continue to be 'saved'. That is not what I meant, though... my apologies.

I actually used the term 'self-justify' rather loosely.




Fair enough Eljay. I would agree that my construct was flawed regarding the self-justification aspect. The 'Do as I say, and not as I do' aspects of the OT still irk me... seriously irk me.

The fact of the matter is, satan is necessary to personify evil. Since God is the figurehead for "Good" than "Evil" needs a "Face" so to speak as well. Because without evil there is no good, and without good there is no evil. The universe is all about balance, it's how it works. If Lucifer had never turned on his creator, had he not fallen. There would be no good or evil, there would simply be "The way it is" it wouldn't have a name, an emotional response. It would just be. I don't know if that confuses anyone but It made sense to me. In order for good to exist so must evil. Satan/Lucifer are simply the portrait in which we paint the deeds. The same with God/YHVH/Jesus(Yeshua) whatever your beliefs. In order to justify morality and what we as humans define as good, there must be an evil to compare it to.

But why wouldn't a Christian try to save the most lost of souls? Satan is the most lost of all.

They could stop the whole evil thing and solve all the problems of humanity if they could save the devil.

Where does it say in the Christian faith there are lost causes? Sinners beyond saving?

Fact #1: The biblical mythology of the God of Abraham proclaims that mankind's "fall from grace" is what brought death and imperfection into the world.

Fact #2: Science has confirmed via overwhelming evidence that death and imperfection existed long before mankind evolved.

Only possible conclusion: Science and biblical mythology are forever totally incompatible and can never be reconciled.

The mythological "God of Abraham" is necessarily every bit of a myth as his Greek counterpart Zeus. There's no getting around it. This has been scientifically verified as I have just outlined above.

Wow, it looks like Cyclops is pulling up some old threads.

I must admit its fun to be reminded of some old friends I've not talked to in years.

The christian extremists are claiming Einstein among their flock of seagulls.

They're FUNNY!

"There is a religious motive for doing science, but it does not entail a belief in a personal God. "

Albert Einstein

Now they are twisting Einstein quotes, (just like they did in the "crazy stuff from the bible" thread). to further their agendas of conquering the world and "saving" everyone...I wonder how many people they will kill or discriminate against to get that done?

It's just not smart...

Some are not smart enough to realize that..they rely on their truthiness to pretend they are not brain damaged from religious indoctrinations...pretty sad really.

"Myth: Intelligent people tend to be more religious.

Fact: Intelligent people tend to be more secular.

Summary

The broad consensus of research shows that people with higher IQs tend to be less religious, not more so.


Argument

Is it more logical to be a Christian? Is religion the natural choice of a smart person familiar with more of the evidence? Not according to a broad consensus of studies on IQ and religiosity. These studies have consistently found that the lower the IQ score, the more likely a person is to be religious.

To place these studies in perspective, it is helpful to know the general religious attitudes of Americans today. According to a February 1995 Gallup poll, 96 percent of all Americans believe in God, and 88 percent affirm the importance of religion. However, the degree of religiosity within this group varies considerably. Only 35 percent can be classified as "religious," using a definition that requires them to consider religion important and attend religious services at least once a week. And a March 1994 Gallup poll found that only 20 percent of all Americans belong to that politically active group known as "Christian conservatives."

The following is a review of several studies of IQ and religiosity, paraphrased and summarized from Burnham Beckwith's article, "The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith," Free Inquiry, Spring 1986: (1)"

I have references to support this obvious fact:

1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward… atheism."

3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…"

5. Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."

6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

8. Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin.

11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

12. James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly antireligious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly antireligious (1108), and religious (1022).

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."

STUDENT BODY COMPARISONS

1. Rose Goldsen, 1952
Percentage of students who believe in a divine god: Harvard 30; UCLA 32; Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43; Weslyan 43; Michigan 45; Fisk 60; Texas 62; North Carolina 68.

2. National Review Study, 1970
Percentage of students who believe in a Spirit or Divine God: Reed 15; Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams 36; Stanford 41; Boston U. 41; Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson 59; S. Carolina 65; Marquette 77.

3. Caplovitz and Sherrow, 1977
Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5 percent in "low" ranked schools to 17 percent in "high" ranked schools.

4. Niemi, Ross, and Alexander, 1978
In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26 percent of their students, compared with 44 percent of all students.

STUDIES OF VERY-HIGH IQ GROUPS

1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

2. Warren and Heist, 1960
Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.

3. Southern and Plant, 1968
Studied 42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.

STUDIES Of SCIENTISTS

1. William S. Ament, 1927
C. C. Little, president of the University of Michigan, checked persons listed in Who's Who in America: "Unitarians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Universalists, and Presbyterians [who are less religious] are… far more numerous in Who's Who than would be expected on the basis of the population which they form. Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics are distinctly less numerous."

Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the least religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in Who's Who as in the U.S. population.

2. Lehman and Witty, 1931
Identified 1189 scientists found in both Who's Who (1927) and American Men of Science (1927). Only 25 percent of those listed in the latter and 50 percent of those in the former reported their religious denomination, despite the specific request to do so, under the heading of "religious denomination (if any)." Well over 90 percent of the general population claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25 percent suggests far less religiosity among scientists.

Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists as non-Unitarians.

3. Kelley and Fisk, 1951
Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious values and research competence. [How these were measured is unknown.]

4. Ann Roe, 1953
Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attend… All the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no part in their lives… A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not interested.'"

5. Francis Bello, 1954
Interviewed or questionnaired 107 nonindustrial scientists under the age of 40 judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. Of the 87 responses, 45 percent claimed to be "agnostic or atheistic" and an additional 22 percent claimed no religious affiliation. For 20 most eminent, "the proportion who are now a-religious is considerably higher than in the entire survey group."

6. Jack Chambers, 1964
Questionnaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, "The highly creative men… significantly more often show either no preference for a particular religion or little or no interest in religion." Found that the most eminent psychologists showed 40 percent no preference, 16 percent for the most eminent chemists.

7. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965
Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in American Men of Science (1955) on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. Of the 642 replies, 38.5 percent did not believe in an afterlife, whereas 31.8 percent did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The Gallup poll taken about this time showed that two-thirds of the U.S. population believed in an afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than the typical adult.

Conclusion

The consensus here is clear: more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion. And this observation is given added force when you consider that the above studies span a broad range of time, subjects and methodologies, and yet arrive at the same conclusion."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm

The Bible says witches should be burned . . . so if someone burns a person, calls them a witch and is Christian, then YES religion played an integral part in the situation, and without religion the situation would have NOT occurred.