Thanks, brother!

I'm not in agreement that any beliefs need to be 'defended'. Defense is a reaction to an attack. And the only reason the Abraham Religions are often attacked is because they proselytize the idea that anyone who rejects their God is a heathen who is indeed against God. This must necessarily follow from the very basis of their religion which is founded on a commandment that there must not be any other God placed before the Godhead of their religion.

In other words, they are attempting to PUSH their religious beliefs onto other people, and this is why they are attacked and placed into a defensive position. If they would quit pushing, they would have no need to 'defend' anything. No one needs to "defend" a personal belief. They only need to defend it when they try to push it onto other people.

So it's the proselytizing nature of the Abrahamic religions (and Christianity in particular) that places it on the defense.

I'm in full agreement with you that science cannot possibly disprove a "god" or a "spiritual essence" to life at all. On the contrary I personally feel that our current knowledge of science actually supports the spirituality of some mystical philosophies. I'm personally not an atheist, at best I'm agnostic, although I confess to lean toward spirituality from both an intuitive as well as a scientific view.



I agree. Many atheists are overly-arrogant twerps who just have hugely overblown egos. (of course not all atheists are like that, but many are). They can be quite obnoxious and disgusting.

I personally believe that any truly intelligent person should never go beyond claiming agnosticism. To claim atheism (at least in terms of total non-spirituality) is a display of true ignorance. Any wise person should know that its impossible to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there cannot be a spiritual essence to life. Therefore to claim atheism (i.e. to claim that there cannot be any possible spiritual essence to life), is to reveal ignorance.



I'm in complete agreement with you on this. However, as you already know from my previous posts I do believe that the Abrahamic religions can indeed be shown to be false, or at the very best, extremely seriously flawed.



Well, I certainly hope so. Although, in truth I think that's an unrealistic expectation even though it is occurring in practice. But all that's truly happening is that individuals are departing from what the text actually says and even denouncing the churches, yet they continue to cling to the label of "Christianity".

The very title of "Christ" means "anointed one" or "Holy One". So the whole theme of "Christianity" is truly based on the idea that Jesus was "The Christ". So the religion truly can't drift very far from that concept and retain any genuine meaning of "Christianity".

To accept that Jesus was "The Christ" also demands a belief in Yahweh, blood sacrifices, and original sin, or the "Fall from Grace". Jesus would have no meaning as a sacrificial lamb of God outside of the notion of a fall from grace and that sin is washed away via blood sacrifices. So those are all key elements in the religion that once any of them are abandoned the entire religion crumbles like a house of cards.

So there's a realistic limit as to what the religion can evolve to become.

I would love for Christians to start viewing their religion as an archetypal model of spirit. If they could do that, then they would stop proselytizing it to other people. They could worship Jesus alongside other people who are worshiping other archetypes of spirit without any conflict. They could still believe that Jesus died for their sins without demanding that Jesus necessarily came for everyone.

In fact, they could use the actual text to support that view.

Even the gospels have Jesus saying: "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

So all that Christians would need to do is recognize that Jesus didn't come for everyone. And then they could allow other people to worship God in their own way and quit proselytizing the idea that everyone must accept Jesus as their savior. That's the thing that keeps forcing them into a defensive position right there.

So, yes, I would love to see Christianity evolve to the point where Christians can respect the choice of other people to reject the Christian doctrine as not applying to them. That would be a wonderful world. I would worship my Moon Goddess side-by-side with a Christian who is worshiping Jesus and we could respect each other's views of how we interact with the Great Holy Spirit differently.

That would be GREAT!



I have already agreed with that in general. However, IMHO, it still flies in the face of the idea that mankind's "fall from grace" is what brought imperfections and death into the world.

Like I say though, if Christians could learn to worship their religion without demanding that everyone else also accept their doctrine, then it wouldn't be a problem. I wouldn't bother arguing with a Christian who simply wanted to believe in a "fall from grace" for their own personal belief. It's only when they start demanding that I must also believe it that it becomes problematic.



I agree. Science has nothing to do with atheism truly. Atheists just abuse science to support their 'religion' which is indeed an ungrounded 'belief' that there can be no god. Science does not support atheism and I personally find it extremely disgusting to see people attempting to claim that it does.

After all, I love and respect science and as far as I'm concerned it not only allows for a spiritual essence of reality, but I personally feel that it actually points to that being the case more so than not. So I see science as being in complete harmony with my own personal understandings of spirit.

This whole idea that science supports atheism and non-spirituality is utter nonsense and is nothing more than an ugly fad that internet wannabe scientists-atheists are attempting to construct. But I agree with you, it's a futile and empty arugment. It's also a slap in the face to the real scientists, many of whom are indeed spiritualists. I know this to be a fact, because I've been a scientists my entire life and there was never a point when I was an atheists. I also know plenty of scientists who are not atheists. And finally, I have never attended a single solitary course in science where it was professional suggested that science has anything at all to say about spiritual idea.

So the claims that science supports atheism is just Internet bogus crap.



Many of them do. But I recently heard on NPR radio that even the "atheistic community" itself is highly divided on these issues and at conflict with each other. Many atheists are truly 'agnostics' really. Especially when it comes to spirituality in general. Like I've already pointed out, there are valid reasons to deny specific dogmatic religions that demand a 'fall from grace'. In fact, I think that the proselytizing of religions like Christianity has been the single most profound cause of atheistic activism. The Christians push for acceptance of this idea of a "fall from grace" and that Jesus Saves, and they push it so hard that many people feel a need to fight back.



Why not focus on those teachings?

Because to accept any part of the Bible as being the 'word of God' loan support to the "fall from grace" and the need to be "saved" by a blood sacrifice that only Jesus can provide.

So why bother with the Bible? The Buddha taught the same good moral values that Jesus taught, why not just follow the teachings of the Buddha and then there's no need for any bloody sacrificial lambs?



Well, I'm in full agreement with you that atheism is just as much a 'believe' in the non-existence of any god or spirit as theism is a belief in one. I also agree that people should use the term agnostic instead of atheism.

The problem once again stems from the proselytizing PUSHINESS of Christianity. The Christian religion is demanding that everyone recognize the "Fall from Grace" and the need for a bloody sacrificial savior.

So it's that demand that causes Christianity to be attacked. If they would quit PUSHING that view onto other people they wouldn't be in the defensive position that they keep finding themselves.

That's the problem with the Abrahamic religions. They feel a need to PUSH their God as the "one and only God" that everyone must OBEY. And in order to OBEY that God you must go by the BOOK because the BOOK is the only place where the so-called "word of God" can be found.

Yet, here you are suggesting that some things in the bible are in error and even outright absurd. So WHICH parts of the book are the word of God and which parts are the errors of Men?

You may as well toss the whole book out once you've confessed that it's been contaminated.

Or, at the very best, just use it for your own personal religious beliefs and don't expect anyone else to accept it.

That would be cool of the whole religion could just do that.

I worship a Moon Goddess, yet I don't expect anyone else to worship her if they don't care to.

If you respect my that Moon Goddess is right for me, then I'll respect that your Jesus is right for you. How's that?

Can we worship side-by-side without demanding that the other person accept our view of God?

I can. You can bring your Jesus to my circle ceremonies if you like and I'll respect your Jesus as a genuine deity and even light a candle for him. I'll even respect him as a deity. But at the same time I'll recognize that his business is with you, and not with me. You can do the same for my Moon Goddess.

I think you mean to say 'some atheist individuals'. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. There are 'strong atheists' and 'weak atheists'. "Weak atheist" do not assert that there is no god.



What a bizarre thing to say. I think you mean: "In order for a rational person to accept it as true." If you accept that reality exists, then things are true whether they are proven or not.



Strong atheists have a 'positive belief'. From my point of view, this positive belief cannot be proven, and in this way I agree with you - they have something in common with theists.

Now, drawing parallels with Christianity seems questionable to me. Christianity is a richer and more complex phenomena than 'strong atheism'.

Hey, JR, did you catch this?

death and imperfections existed always

RCs and some other Christians believe that evolution swung into action since God created everything 6000 years ago. Or maybe 6000 - seven years ago, after the fall from the garden of Eden.

It is one thing to accept that a system like evolution can work in theory, is in place and working in practice; the system itself, its mechanisms. As a working system it has nothing against Xianity. It is another thing to pinpoint to say that the system has been in place for 6000 years or for 3000000 or for six billion years. That is an arbitrary decision when one considers only whether evolution works. So the world is only 6000 years old? Then obviously, evolution cannot have been working for more than 6000 years.

A blasphemer will have his phemur broken.

God **** that.

My phemur is not broken.

If god existed, he would have no choice but to follow his own promise in the ten commandments.

But he did not follow.

Which means that he is either not consistent, or else he can't do it altogether, due to not existing.

If he is not consistent, then he lacks perfect symmentry and other perfections.

Anything that lacks perfection is not god.

Anything which is not an existing god is a god.

Therefore there is no way god can be god.

--------

Therefore god is not god, but nothing, or else a reasonable facsimile of an ideal god.