I don't believe in an afterlife or reincarnation due to insufficient evidence. Moreover, I've always had problems with the orthodox Christian concept of heaven and the glorified mind-body idea. What happens to the people with Alzheimer's, traumatic brain injuries, stroke, mental retardation, developmental disorders, children, etc.? Whose "personality" and "body" to they receive? The story falls apart when taken to its logical conclusion. I usually hear replies like, "God's ways are mysterious", "All shall be made known if you get there", and "What if you're wrong? Do you want to go to hell?" Those aren't convincing arguments.

TO Rabbit:

It would appear that the Sermon on the Mount was lifted from the Dhammapada. Further, the Gospel of John shares parallels with the Bhagavad Gita.

Interesting stuff.

Now, Middian-Age Eternal.

My cat lickin' her butt.

SP rules. I'm super duper cereal! Excelsior!

From Justin to Kelly. It was scary.

But, there's the rub. Evidence indicates that the 'Bible' is a hodgepodge of historically unreliable stories, questionable testimonies, common mythologies, fables, legends, and propaganda that was written, redacted, interpolated, translated and mistranslated over many centuries by unknown authors.

Assuming you are referring to the English translation, the text is far from "easy" because the information is ambiguous, inconsistent and contradictory (if you read the words at face-value and under the literary and historical context it was written in).

If it's so easy a child should understand it, then why the need for Christian apologists, and thousand page encyclopedias of biblical apologetics/difficulties to convince people that the 'Bible' makes perfect sense since it's the inspired, infallible, inerrant, literal word of a perfect being?

Am I the only one who finds that incredibly ironic?

Gemini. I'm my own best friend.

Eljay,

I took Abra's comment as pointing out that Cosmological Arguments, Arguments from Design, Arguments from Complexity, or whatever you want to call it, aren't 'intuitively obvious' or logical. They are non-sequiturs. The problems are:

1. The idea of the cosmos being 'infinitely old' isn't illogical.
2. There isn't complete evidence to definitively say everything that exists must have a cause.
3. If the universe is defined as space, matter and time, then discussing time prior to the start of the universe is nonsensical. There can be no time.
4. If you disagree with the above, the challenge remains, if the universe must have been caused by something, what caused that something? It's an infinite regress. How one arrive at the Christian God from that is the other challenge.

I respectfully disagree. That's a fallacy of faulty generalization. Christianity is a nebulous term. You might have valid arguments against orthodox or 'fundamentalist' Christians on evidential and moral grounds, but you'll have to spell those out.

Personally, I'm repulsed when Christians push their agenda onto others, e.g. getting the ten commandments posted in the court houses, teaching intelligent design as science, advocating a return to OT law, and preventing their children from receiving proper medical care based on God belief.

Just my two cents. Hope you're doing well, Abra. Good point on the Cosmological Argument earlier.

C'mon. I asked for a BJ, but I meant to write PBJ. Cut me some slack.

Sounds like somebody needs a hug, and told that she's pretty.

Eat menudo. It's made from tripe not the annoying boy band.

Heard about this one?

http://www.adultsheepfinder.com/

The point is that science provides a framework in which to make TESTABLE hypotheses and FALSIFIABLE predictions based on empirical evidence. Science isn't based on edicts, decrees, appeals to authority or appeals to popularity. Its methodology doesn't rely on absolutes, i.e. religious dogma, but on TENTATIVE conclusions concerning how the natural world operates.

Well, at least, "I'm too sexy for my cat" didn't make the top 10.

Cheers!

Well being that is said, "Practice What You Preach".. What? Oh yes, this means
"they submit to your dogma. It's hardly a respectable or virtuous practice." - no opinions in debate class =)



Kal,

I don't follow. Please elaborate. Thanks.

Isn't this the same plot to every romance-comedy movie ever made? The girl ends up falling for the heart of gold, opposite side of the tracks-type, goofy guy with less money but better jokes.

Michael Hedges.

Amazing. R.I.P.