@Madisonian Your relationship, like all relationships with various gods, is superstition. This isn't necessarily irrational at first, but when you presume, without evidence, that rationality requires God, that's where it becomes irrational. The four forces are testable; that's why they've made it into the textbooks. Nothing you can say about God is testable, and that necessarily defies the definition of God.

@Madisonian Ancient Writer of Religious Texts were expert builders of Straw Castles within which entire communities of 'Straw Men resided and were the Role Model for the Modern Inventors of the religions such as Christianity, Islam and their numerous bastard off-spring cults and sects.

Tell them Marje

@Madisonian I’m afraid I see nothing rational or real in believing something which requires only blind faith and with no evidence or verifiable proof as a basis for such belief. I really don’t want to bandy words with you or be discourteous, but I’d like you to consider how it would be if we reversed the situation, and I joined a site founded by and for Christians and for my first post I stated that I was an atheist and was not interested in debating Christianity, but wanted them to ask me why I didn’t believe, because I thought it was the most rational way to perceive reality. How exactly do you think I would be received? Not well - I feel certain of that, even though in fact that reversed scenario makes more sense because it is more rational and real to disbelieve what is impossible to prove than to believe it. As we both know it is an impossibility to prove a negative and it is therefore illogical to even try to prove that god exists without any evidence ever being found of such existence.

I do respect your right to believe anything you wish, however I do not believe you have the right to join a club and then try to dictate the agenda to the established members. To me that demonstrates that you think it’s ok to show disrespect to those of us who prefer to spend time here in our own space as an escape from the perpetual god-botherers we find elsewhere. Many people here have had a very bad experience with religion in the past, and at the hands of the religious. I’m lucky not to be one such person, but it would be nice if people like you would just stay away and peddle your thoughts and beliefs where they would be more appreciated.

@Marionville
I'm not in favor of creating such echo chambers as you recommend. I don't see how an authentic Agnosticism could claim to not be able to hear about the views of believers. That wouldn't be any kind of agnosticism - it would be a hard atheism, not to mention a hard-hearted attitude. That said, the stated purpose of this site, by its creator, is to foster conversation about these issues, not to shut it down. There is nothing in the bylaws of this site that stipulates it is reserved exclusively for people who have been injured by religious fanatics, or for hardcore atheists. It's all about open dialog among any, about anything, as long as it is mutually respectful, which this new member (unlike many of the veteran members) has been. Those who don't want to participate in any given discussion are totally free to scroll past it without harm. To my knowledge, the claims you are making are not backed up by evidence. I understand those feelings, but they really don't represent the clearly stated intentions of the founder. I'm open to seeing evidence to the contrary, but I believe diversity is healthier than narrow tribalism.

@skado On the contrary to your interpretation of what you think I said…I welcome debate. It was the poster who made it clear he had no intention of entering into any debate in his opening statement, if you care to read it again. I’m not interested in listening to why someone believes in god unless I can also counter with my own views on why I don’t. He came to proselytise and tell us the “good news” of why he thinks we should too, which is a well known conversion technique. He isn’t interested in why we don’t believe or are sceptical about a god, and that’s why he will not enter into any debate with us. He thought he’d have a captive audience of nonbelievers and he could gain some kudos if he won some of us over. What he made was his pitch to us, it is a mission statement of intent to convert. To many here who’ve had a lifetime of indoctrination and being talked at by the religious, the fact that we can discuss all matter of topics including religion and not be preached at, is precisely why they find this site a welcome relief, regardless of what the original intent of the founder of this site was.

@Madisonian The fact that you or other Christians believe a belief in God to be rational does not make it so. People have all kinds of irrational beliefs in the most strange and nonsensical things. It is the fact you have categorically stated you will not enter into any debate with us that I find unacceptable. Debate is healthy and anything else is being talked at, and that I will not engage in.

@Marionville
You have chosen, among other options, to interpret his words and intentions in ways that don’t seem consistent with the (admittedly scant) evidence we have to go on.

He may be exactly as you claim, but I see other probabilities. We all know most words have multiple definitions, and accurate interpretation must be derived from overall context. If you care to read the entire thread, he has made it clear he is interested in discussing these ideas, so I assume what he meant by “debate” is ‘fruitless bickering.’ I don’t see that he is preaching any more than all the opinionated people on this site do every day about their own beliefs. It would be hard for me to imagine any person of any belief engaging a discussion on any topic in a more respectful and productive way than this new member has. If all he turns out to want is to preach “at” us, he will soon get bored and leave, so no harm done. If he stays a while he’s likely to learn something (or we will), and I’m willing to spend some time supporting that learning process. When fundamentalists are met with close-mindedness and rudeness it just hardens them in their preconceptions that atheists are devoid of humanity.

I don’t see any place where he has declared any mission statement of intent to convert. He specifically stated he didn’t expect to do that. You seem to be convinced you know his mind and intentions beyond, and indeed in contradiction to what he himself has stated.

To judge an unknown member of a class of people by bad experiences one has had with other members of that class is the stuff racism is made of. He hasn’t pursued any individual here with unwanted proselytizing. He just opened a thread for anyone to join or ignore as they please. I see no basis for your accusations.

@Madisonian
You are welcome to post in the Religious Naturalism Group [agnostic.com] any time, or of course in any non-group forum like "General and Hellos", etc. (or any group run by hospitable people).

@Madisonian You are welcome to post in any of my groups, as long as you put up no conditions against debating with you. As a lifelong freethinker I believe debate to be healthy and I think any belief or principle should be robust enough to stand up to that challenge. Personally, I have never had a religion and have never had any personal experience of mistreatment at the hands of Christians or any other religious groups. I do know that there are others here on this site who have suffered and suffered badly though, and I was referencing them when I spoke.

@skado I think your last barb at my expense quite unnecessary. This group is called “Freethinkers” and freethinkers do not stifle debate but welcome it. The poster could have made the same post, but without the admission that he didn’t want to debate the issue, and there would’ve been no objection from me. I could have blocked his post but I didn’t, and as he himself said, he had ample opportunity to say his piece.

@Marionville
What’s really quite unnecessary is automatic hostility against someone who posts something in a group called Freethinkers which happens to differ from your worldview, especially when he has been nothing but a gentleman.

I can’t think of anything that could shut down debate faster than telling someone they don’t belong in this club. You have misread his intended meaning of the word debate, and then judged him on the basis of your misunderstanding, without bothering to try to clarify before condemning. I don’t see how that aligns with “freethinking”.

@skado I have no hostility towards the gentleman and nor did I indicate any. I didn’t shut him down because I disagreed with his views, on the contrary I wanted him to debate his views and not stifle discourse. I welcome the fact that his worldview and mine differ vastly, that is healthy in a tolerant society, it was the fact that he didn’t seem to be interested in any other view but getting his over to us that I couldn’t understand, and which I took issue with.

You have chosen to paint me as an intolerant person trying to close someone down when I am in fact trying to get him to be more open to having his viewpoint challenged in open debate. I think it is you who is quick to condemn and not I. Quick to condemn me, to attribute motives which are false and to take it upon yourself to champion this newcomer whom you perceive to be in need of protection. You tell me that I have misread his meaning and his intent, have misinterpreted the use of the word “debate”, and I have based my reaction on a complete misunderstanding of what he meant. This I contend is completely conjecture on your part and based only on your interpretation of what you believe he means.

I have told @Madisonian that he is welcome in any of my groups so long as he puts no barriers to us challenging or debating his viewpoints. I don’t think he needs a champion to speak on his behalf, I’m sure he is perfectly capable of answering for himself and in no need of you acting as his mouthpiece or self appointed protector…well intentioned or not. Let us not escalate this any further, and as an act of conciliation I will apologise for any misconception I may have inadvertently given you that I wished to shut down debate or show hostility towards a new member.

@Madisonian Yes, of course that’s seems perfectly reasonable, however I will give some thought before I make a proper response and pose any questions. In the meantime @skado has got me questioning whether I could’ve responded to your initial post with more consideration and graciousness. Please forgive me if I seemed unwelcoming…it was not my intention to appear so.

@Marionville
I don’t want to escalate and I’m not condemning you or championing anyone else. I’m just reflecting back what I perceive to be happening in front of my eyes. My eyes are no more perfect than anyone else’s, but just another view to consider (in the spirit of fair and open debate). What I’m championing is giving individuals a fair chance to tell us who they are before we condemn them for being a member of a group we don’t approve of.

I appreciate your apology and offer mine. I wish I had sufficient skills to get my ideas across without being offensive. I realize I don’t always, and I am forever trying to improve. Please accept my heartfelt apologies.

@Madisonian I’m pleased to hear that you consider us to be pretty hospitable…at least that is gratifying to know!

Just by the way, I live in the most religious part of the U.K..in Northern Ireland…and ALL my friends, (and I have a wide circle through choir, work and voluntary organisations) are practicing believers and churchgoers, either Catholic or Protestant of some denomination or another. We rarely discuss religion because it’s a contentious issue in this part of the Island of Ireland …they don’t try to convert me and I don’t tell them they are wrong to believe whatever it is they believe. I just love them all as friends and there are plenty of other topics and interests to discuss anyway.

@Madisonian Imo, and speaking for myself here, irrationality is the bug-bear of many a rationally minded person but NONE, to the best of my understanding actually find irrationality "OFFENSIVE" as you, imo, so falsely claim.
We do find it to be vexatious, annoying, irritating, etc, etc, especially when some-one or other decides that he/she MUST do " God's Work" and convert us from being what humans TRULY are, i.e. RATIONAL Beings, into the Irrational, God-fearing, ever willing, slaves and vassals of a Tyrannical, Savage, Barbaric, Misogynistic, Genocidal, Narcissistic, Homophobic, Emotionally and Psychologically Insecure, Impotent Despotic Ruler whom NO-ONE can nor has EVER seen, heard from, nor can even PROVE its existence.

@Madisonian Seriously, you took this literally? You did not see the metaphor I was implying? Oh boy you really are a Christian believer.

I guess SUPER DOOPER, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent Sky Daddy was bored at those times and decided to re-stage the old days of the totally imaginary Roman Persecutions of the Christians.
Geez Louise, it MUST get truly tedious up there in the Ethers watching these puny Earthlings enjoying life hour after hour, day after day and having NO entertainment except throngs simpering sycophants sing your praise non-stop over and over again and again.

@Triphid According to many of the eminent theologians of time gone by, the main pass time of those resident in the "bliss " of heaven is watching the damned souls in hell being tortured for all time, and relishing in their misery.
How "Christian"

@LenHazell53 What can one say to that kind of a philosophy?

@Madisonian The Bible does not give us any information about Heaven?
Sure about that?

(John 14:2-3) heaven contains many mansions
(Revelation 21:16) Actual measurements of the size of Heaven
(Hebrews 12:22-23) Purposes of Heaven
(Revelation 4:1-11) Detailed description of the palace of God in heaven
(Revelation 7:9-10) The throne room of heaven
(Revelation 7:15-17). The fountains and weather in heaven
(Revelation 11:19) The temples of heaven and the weather therein (stormy)
(Revelation 14:13) Heaven is the resting place of the dead
(1 Thessalonians 4:13-18) Everyone in heaven is asleep, awaiting the day of resurrection
(ROMANS 14:17) No eating and drinking in heaven
(Revelation 19:11-14) The Army of Heaven
(Revelation 21:9-11). The Jewels and decoration of heaven
(Revelation 21:19) More about the interior and exterior bejewelling of heaven and even its foundation
(Revelation 21:21) The golden roads, pearly gates and glass walls of heaven
(Revelation 22:2) Parks filled with trees in heaven
(Revelation 22:4-5) The sources of light in Heaven
(2 Corinthians 12.2–4) The Levels of heaven (at least three)
(2 Corinthians 5:1) Buildings in heaven are indestructible
(Hebrews 11:16) (Hebrews 11:10) (Jeremiah 10:12) (Psalm 103:11) Heaven is a city designed by god in the sky
(Revelation 21:1-5) (2 Peter 3:10) Heaven is not eternal and will pass away to be replaced with a better one on a new earth.
(Judges 6:24) God's heaven is a place of peace
(Revelation 12:7-9) War in heaven
(Romans 1:18) Heaven is the place of god's wrath
(1 Corinthians 13:12) No secrets or privacy in heaven.
(Isaiah 11:6) Heaven has animals
(Matthew 18:3) Heaven does not have animals, only people
(Matthew 22 :29) No marriage or sex in heaven

@Madisonian Lucy (2014) is an uncredited rip-off of the earlier Japanese Novel, manga and TV series Elfin Leid, about a woman "Lucy" who is subject to a government super soldier programme using drug enhancement to boost her psychic powers and becomes practically a god who cannot be contained.

@Madisonian
Basically if there is eternal life - I will have eternity to explore and learn - in time - I think there will time - to possibly have as much knowledge as exists today in all of the disciplines in a modern first class university.
Eternal life is a hideous idea, it is basically a period of learning and discovery followed by an eternity of boredom, disappointment and inescapable stagnation. Sounds like Hell to me.
Heighten ability to enjoy music, yes worship - and to create art.
As above, there is not enough music art or knowledge to fill an infinite amount of time. An eternity of worship and pandering to a narcissist god who demands constant attention? No, thank you!
I think God created us to know - He wants us to discover and to know - because the more knowledge we have, the better we can worship Him.
God's greatest gift to humankind, was apparently free will, but then he forbids its use, punishes the questioner, refuses to allow entry to heaven to those who use free will to disagree with him, and burns eternally those who stand up for the right to disagree. If god did create us and this was his plan, he is a dick, who just wants sycophantic toys to play with in order to fill his own hell of eternal existence.
To enjoy close relationship - far surpassing anything we can experience here.
The bible say there are no marriages or close relationships in heaven, and when St. Paul talks about this it is to ensure you can have no privacy in heaven and no secrets see above post
And to engage in satisfying work - gardening maybe - and animal husbandry -
Again the bible says only those who have been saved and accepted the salvation of Jesus can enter heaven, so no animals as they cannot be saved, nor can they repent. And apparently heavenly trees grow themselves and produce fruit once a month every month, but since no one eats or drinks in heaven god only knows why, again see above
It seems to me things like this will not be far off the mark, but no one could be authoritative about it.
The Bible claims to be
It's just my conception - an incredible increase in the ability to learn, discover and enjoy.
We are talking about infinite time and eternal life, here you could never fill it, never mind enjoy it.
If man can make sci-fi movies - if they can use their imaginations to create sci-fi movies with incredible special effects - why not imagine what an all knowing, all powerful God can do.
Yes it is terrifying, especially if you consider what according to the bible he has already done and plans to do in the future, he is a genocidal tyrant who in a fit of rage drowned the whole world for being naughty for example

Parents give good things to their children - why not expect God to give good things to his?
Because the two situations are not comparable, we have children to continue the species and leave a legacy after we are gone. God creates children in order to play with them, destroy them, make them live forever and then force them to spend eternity worshipping him.
I guess all this will seem childish to you and be ridiculed. So what's wrong with being childish?
There is nothing wrong with being child like, childishness on the other hand connotes temper tantrums, spoiled behaviour, greed and petulance. Which to me sounds like a pretty good description of the god of the bible.

@Madisonian If I have actually helped you to think about these things then that is all that I can ask.

@Madisonian Quite Weak Arguments! Sadly not surprised as I expected! I won't answer here, pls. make a Specific Post for each Specific Argument, if you want a clear conversation

@Madisonian "all these forces are invisible"

If by that you mean 'can't be detected' by our (highly limited) vision, that is true enough.

HOWEVER, they ALL are detectable/replicable/verifiable by Science.
In addition to falsifiable, NONE of those characteristics can be applied to any religion.

Calling someone a Troll reflects on you. Don't fear the #religulous...(s)he's here because (s)he's obviously "in transition" or at least curious.

@Robecology did I call them a troll?

@Deb57 If I ask you "are you just stupid" - that's insinuating, insultingly, that you're stupid, right? You asked if he's "just a troll"....same idea.

@Robecology It's not the same at all. She was trying to determine his level of commitment to the subject matter through a series of questions along the same line. They would have had the opportunity to interact if you hadn't interfered.

@Robecology if someone is doing what a troll does, and I ask them if they are a troll, it's a legitimate question. I really don't care if it upsets your delicate sensibilities. Cry me a river.

@Madisonian, fine. Feel free to prove there is a god. Since it's unlikely you could possibly do that, feel free to offer some testable evidence that any gods exist. Good luck with that. Please understand that most of us are not here simply because we are what you might consider "unenlightened" or never exposed to the "good news." Many of us have studied and searched, in depth, for answers; and are here because the conclusions reached all failed to hit the mark.

@Madisonian
Your hopes for the site are similar to what mine were as a new member.
Pretty much any kind of (non-threatening) discussion is allowed here, but not compelled. So it’s a mix here.
It’s the internet, so you will (already have) encounter people who feel an obligation to be rude and unwelcoming based on no knowledge of you. But there are some thoughtful people. More atheists, I think, than agnostics. I would like to hear your perspective, thanks.

@Madisonian

“Given the basic assumption that the God of rationality and order does not exist - then why should we believe that what goes on in our brains leads to reliable truth about the external world?”

I can’t see that we should trust that what goes on in our brains leads to reliable truth whether that God exists or not. This caution would apply to believers and non-believers alike.

The question becomes, given that the brain is known to have biases and limitations, is the next best thing to rely on our intuitions about popular interpretations of classical interpretations of ancient literature, or to rely on a method of empirical testing that was designed to circumvent as many human biases as possible?

“How is it that science is possible?”

I can see your point that an orderly universe is what makes science possible, but the assumption, as you call it, that a God was required to make that universe orderly is exactly as you say, an assumption. And quite an understandable assumption to make, in human terms, but not one founded on verifiable evidence.

I can see only two possible justifications for believing anything:

1. Ample evidence.
2. Psychological need.

I’m not aware of ample evidence, and I don’t have the psychological need, because the science adequately meets those needs for me.

So while I see how a literal God would seem rational to someone not intimately familiar with the relevant science and history, I think that familiarity has the capacity to answer critical questions satisfactorily without relying on a literal God concept.

That said, I have no qualms with using religious metaphors as shorthand for speaking about cumbersome abstractions and values encountered in the human experience. But a deep understanding of the various forces of evolution, coupled with a broad familiarity with world mythology, makes it very understandable how complex organisms could exist without a conscious creator, and how humans would necessarily gravitate toward an anthropomorphized creator in the absence of more specific knowledge.

I’m not sure what philosophical approach you are referring to that has failed. I don’t know where I might be borrowing from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of the world. On the other hand, unlike most members here, I am quite happy to acknowledge the accuracy, as well as usefulness, of religious metaphor (not just Christian) in service of popular sensemaking when deeper scientific understandings are not yet apprehended.

@Madisonian Don't be "sorry". Becoming agnostic/atheist is an evolution - a very slow process. Thanks again for joining us. Try seeing where you are on these charts. We're all moving through them.

@Madisonian Do you see the contradiction in your comments?

You seem (as most religious folk do) convinced that you won't change...yet you're telling us that you have strong biases that you will become "more aware" of them...

So...you are evolving. Going through slow changes. I used to be a very religious person..did the 'alter boy" and "choir member" thing...but over the years - science, facts, and wisdom caused me to "evolve".

Glad you admit it!

Welcome, again, to Agnostic dot com!

@Madisonian Thank you for your long and thoughtful reply. I will need to take my time to give it the attention that it deserves.

@Madisonian Would it be reasonable to think that you accept the claims of the Bible without checking the validity of those claims?

@Madisonian Would it be correct to say that you have accepted somebody else's opinion on the matter of the resurrection of Christ?

@Madisonian Thank you. Would it be fair to say that you prefer the work of the experts who work in Biblical scholarship over the work of other experts who work in Judaism, Islam, Confucianism and Shinto?

@Madisonian
You do know that Gary Habermas gained his PhD with his thesis "The resurrection of Jesus: a rational inquiry" from Michigan State University, a Roman Catholic University directly run by the Roman Catholic Church in 1974. MSU is not to be confused with the University of Michigan, a secular university that does not require students to be practising Christians.
This makes his achievement a little less impressive in my opinion.

@Madisonian I think your reply was meant for @LenHazell53 . Would you care to answer my last question to you?

@Madisonian No worries about the having too many people to respond to - I think all of us have been there.

You may find it interesting and/or illuminating to read the scholarship of those as well as other religious traditions.

@Madisonian I know @Triphid very well. I find him to be a fine thinker and a wonderful human being.

Can I offer some ideas on a person-to-person basis? Everybody has limitations, and nobody's limitations should be seen as being in any way shameful. "Failure" is an emotive word, and I do not like it. Failure is an inevitable consequence of striving for things, and achievement also arises from striving for things. In my view, Western society as a whole focuses far too much on failure and fails (word chosen deliberately!) to celebrate success. There are advantages to being a slow reader; it can mean that you are taking your time to consider the words that you are reading and also that you are thinking about the author's point of view.

I thank you for your complimenting me. I will return the favour by saying that you have done very well in staying a member of this community.

@Madisonian "Credibility of your Faith," a belief system that is COMPLETELY bereft of any credibility, evidences, has NEVER once in 2,000 years show even an IOTA of Tangible, Undeniable, Irrefutable, Tried, Tested and Peer Reviewed PROOF Positive in support of ANY or ALL of its innumerable CLAIMS.
You, Sir, claim YOURSELF to a be "an Expert on your Faith," This I reject completely since you appear to have NO actual Academic Accreditations of note to show in support such claims.
And thus far all you have done is cite mere quotations penned by others and many of those you seem NOT to have given accreditation where such is due as well.

@Triphid @Madisonian There is also the trivially falsifiable "Nobody has produced any falsifiable evidence to support the existence claim of any god in the last 5,000 years.".

@anglophone Ah but there is Thunder ergo Thor exist, there is lightning ergo Zeus exists and there is sunlight ergo Helios exists....LOL.
Just utilizing Christian Circular Reasoning here btw.

@Madisonian,Did it EVER occur to you that ALL of your reference Authors derived their 'qualifications' from Religious Based Institutions of Education, i.e. they ARE well known for their extremely BIASED teachings and teaching methods btw.
Ergo, as your Refence Source may well be biased therefore so are the opinions and conclusions you have drawn as well, imo.

@Triphid Wrong addressee?

@anglophone My apologies. You are correct, I will remedy the situation post-haste of course.

@Madisonian Your "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it," assumes the existence of the said Creator, and has been previously observed there is zero evidence to support the existence claim of that or any other Creator.

Your "can be directed only by reason and conviction" is circular reasoning (i.e. flawed reasoning), as it it also assumes the existence of the said Creator. Surely, if the said Creator existed it would expect you to use sound reasoning instead of flawed reasoning, otherwise its existence would be a lie. /@Triphid

@Madisonian Display for us all this "empirical evidence that was AVAILABLE to the these reporters some 200 years ago" please.
FYI I have studied the Mormon Religion from both the aspects of an outsider and an Insider as well and I can tell you that 'supposed' Golden tablets as per proclaimed to be given un to him by the Angel Moroni were ONLY Ever seen by the Charlatan Joseph Smith himself and NO-ONE else.
When asked by ANYONE to show them these Golden Tablets, Smith would reply, "I cannot for the Angel Moroni guards them and ONLY permits me to view them at his will."

@Madisonian It is a mistake to conflate atheism with any system of government. That mistake is the logical fallacy of category error. /@Triphid

@Madisonian You continue to conflate atheism with a system of government. You repeat your logical fallacy of category error. /@Triphid

@Madisonian You CANNOT by any STRETCH of either Imagination or Logic EQUALATE/Conflate Atheism/Atheists with either Communism, Dictatorships or Tyrannies of ANY sort or kind, that is just a " Cop Out move" much over-used by the Religious to attempt to cover up the ATROCITIES committed in the Names of Religions and God over the last 17 + Centuries AND, by NO MEANS discounting the Genocides, etc, etc, etc, by Abrahamic God as per recorded in the Word of God known as the Holy Bible.
Since, even at a VERY CONSERVATIVE estimate, the DEATH TOLL that can be DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED to this Abrahamic God is that of EVERY SINGLE person who ever lived and died on Earth from the Fabled Creation right through until this very minute BECAUSE the Abrahamic God CURSED humans with Mortality BECAUSE a HUMAN DARED to partake of the Fruit of Knowledge and became self-aware and NOT a merely living puppet as the Abrahamic God so wanted.
Ergo, the Child that is miscarried, the child that is stillborn, those SLAUGHTERED in the Name of Christ and God, those lost to diseases, Natural Disasters, etc, etc, ad infinitum ALL rest upon the shoulder of this CRUEL, BRUTAL, SAVAGE, UNCIVILISED, TYRANNICAL, BLOOD-LUSTING, Psycho-pathic, Socio-pathic, Homophobic, Misogynistic, Rapist God unto which YOU pray and show your adorations.
I sincerely SUGGEST you START READING your cherished bible word for word, page for page, etc, etc, and NO longer merely cheery-picking your way through it.
You WILL see the TRUTH then.

@Madisonian PROVE that your VERY BROAD STATEMENT, " But Communists are Atheist" please and do so WITH ACTUAL Undeniable, Irrefutable, Empirically Tried and Tested EVIDENCE AND NOT by MERE Religiously based and biased Innuendoes PLEASE.

@Madisonian Again we see your extremely biased and flawed interpretations of absolutely EVERYTHING to do with Human kind, Society, etc, etc,.
For example, WHERE precisely was this God and hits Son, Jesus, when humans first began to build communities, etc, from merely being small, tribal clans eking out a living and scavenging for food?
Can you answer that for us all please?
Oh, and please TRY not to keep everyone waiting for days/weeks on end, we are all aging EVERY single minute fyi, yourself included btw.
Oh and DO NOT attempt to answer by stating that "It was God who guided them," or something equally as inane because this god you worship was not even a mere spark of an idea in the human imagination at that time in human history.

@Madisonian So, what I perceive that your are saying is that, " the Interpretations of the bible by the individual are the truths and should be seen a being so no matter what interpretations others may arrive at at?
Is that correct?
The bible IS open to ANY and ALL interpretations BUT i8t stiil, remains the SOLE source of Truths and Facts no matter what.

@Madisonian Can YOU actually post ANYTHING at all without it being a repeated posting?
Your endless usage of what I call, " Christian Circular Reasoning and Posting," is getting to be extremely tedious to say the very least.
Btw, the Human instinctual drive to ensure the survival of the species via mutual co-operation was around and in use LONG, LONG, LONG before your inane belief system and its Deity was EVER invented.
Oh, and try checking other tags since I have opened up another discussion point and topic on the Free Thinkers Group and am awaiting a response/reply from you IF you have the grit and balls to engage in debate with me that is.

@Madisonian Hah, hah, hah, 1 single hypothetical comment taken from an ENTIRE MANIFESTO, that I sincerely doubt you have ever read, and you think you know it all.
FYI, Marx was a modern day Philosopher hypothesising for the most part, when he penned his Manifesto, it was Lenin and the others who twisted and contorted it into the Communist Manifesto of the U.S.S.R.

@Triphid I see that our friend @Madisonian has run away.

@anglophone The TYPICAL Theist game of Post and Run I guess.

@Madisonian You will have to learn what evidence is before you can engage meaningfully in debate.

@Madisonian Your "Rationality is impossible without God. That is all the proof I need." is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. /@LovinLarge

@Madisonian "Rationality is impossible without God." is a profoundly irrational and erroneous claim.

@Madisonian Your "It is circular reasoning but not a fallacy" is the logical fallacy of the fallacy fallacy.

@Madisonian You were led by your parents to believe what they believed because they were all that you knew and you were dependant upon them. You have never performed a serious critical analysis of your childhood indoctrination because you are absent the tools.

@Madisonian Religion's are organisations representing ideology and as such have no freedoms, living things do like people. How can ideology be "free"?

I dislike the term "Freedom of religion". It should be "Freedom of belief" which includes religions.
Sounds like you did a fair job bringing up your kids and is the only plus of religion as far as I can see, providing the benefits of belonging to a community.
All you need for morals is empathy which admittedly, many lack, which is why religions attempt to teach that, going by their good books messages. Pity most religious cherry pick their doctrine.

@Madisonian " One believes, the other does not," i.e. 1'win' versus 1 loss, ergo each cancels the other out, hence a NOT a Tied situation but a Failure imo, since, as you so claim to " be an expert in YOUR Faith? then convincing them BOTH should have been a no -effort and no-brainer exercise to say the very least.
Either that, OR, the Non-believing daughter is much, much more wiser than her parent and saw through the mists of myths and superstitions and decided to walk in the light of Logic and Reality instead, for that I congratulate her most heartily.

@Madisonian As a Psychologist of some note, though not of my noting but that of numerous others btw, I'd say that Growth, Emotional included, needs to encompass ALL things in and of life rather than merely concentrating upon religious fallacies and proven falsehoods..
You most probably will NOT like it deep inside yourself BUT your daughter who has chosen Logic, reasoning and Reality over Religious Superstitions and Innuendoes HAS gained both emotional growth and true human evolutionary development imo.
She HAS discarded the 'crutch' that is Religion, learned a person needs to stand by themselves, accept the responsibilities for their actions/inactions themselves and MUST answer ONLY to themselves and, in some cases, society at large.
Whereas, imo, you still choose to 'cling doggedly' to the crutch that is religion, refuse to view your system of beliefs in another way and imo, DEMAND that others respect your choices when you will not/or refuse to do the same for them BUT still claim to have reached " Emotion Maturity and Growth."
Now, imo we are HERE to debate your beliefs, etc, versus those of we, the Atheist and Agnostics, mind you Atheists DO NOT have BELIEFS as such and THAT is A FACT btw, as to Agnostics then ONLY Agnostics can TRULY speak for themselves on that matter,.
We are not, imo, here to discuss and offer tears and solaces for either your past history or mine, etc, etc, those events are now passed in to the sands of time and NOTHING , nothing at all change those facts.
So, instead of, as I seem tp perceive it as being, seeking to extract 'sympathies' and compassions to assure your beliefs are accepted, let us debate upon the matter in hand, RELIGION.

@Madisonian Yes, even though I am from Australia, I do know what rifles and other firearms are, how they work, how to use them, etc, etc.
FYI, you ARE NOT debating some hillbilly Colonial her, I too served in Vietnam as Number 2 seat on Medivac Choppers, yep, the same Choppers that hauled many a Yankee out of a shit fight and to medical attention as well.

@Madisonian I served for MY country Not yours btw, in war that YOUR country dragged us in to.
And, FYI, I know what an M14, M16, a Mauser 7.69mm, an Enfield .303 and quite a number of other types of firearms and weapons are as well.

@Madisonian FYI, as an well experienced debater I know and understand that ATTEMPTING to "curry favour/ win sympathy points, etc, etc," from the Audience is a classed as a FOUL, LOW and dirty TRICK most often utilised by those who seek to defend the indefensible, i.e. the Believers.
Hence, as you may well note, I make/made NO mention what-so-ever of the trials, etc, that I have endured in my life-time during this discussion/debate, ONLY you have done and imo, it is yet another foul ruse utilised in any effort to shine a sympathetic light your way and that you may have an advantage should the discussion go against you and people begin to see you in your TRUEST aspect thus I will be, as you would be sincerely hoping imo, seen as the BAD guy and you as the poor and innocent victim thus earning YOU even more sympathies, etc, etc.
Sorry to burst your little bubble of Hope here BUT the vast majority here are quite wise to the tactics of the Religious so that ruse is a goner before it has even drawn breath.

@Madisonian And could it no be also said that this Madisonian Creed is just another absurd derivation of the Christian Ideology and Hypothesis?

@Madisonian
Sorry but NO. Associates for Biblical Research is associated only with unaccredited religiously sponsored bible colleges, it is a creationist organisation founded in 1969 by" David Livingston" (No not that one) for the purposes of QUOTE
" demonstrating the historical reliability and accuracy of the Scriptures and to propagate the Christian faith ... based on the conviction that the Bible is the Word of God and, therefore, infallible, inerrant and authoritative in its original writings.

It's "scholarly" articles are not peer reviewed, and it is not part of or recognised by Archaeological Institute of America.
Likewise, Hugh Ross' Reasons to believe website is another creationist nonsense organisation with no scientific credibility, that has largely destroyed the career of former astrophysicist Ross.

Please for the sake of your own credibility check out your sources before you quote from them.

@Madisonian Am I to understand from this that you are a creationist? That you take the first chapters of Genesis as literal reporting of actual events? That you accept the premise of a talking snake, the fall of man being attributable to an act of scrumping and the common ancestry of everyone on earth being traceable back to two nudists in a magic garden?

@Madisonian

When you say Christ created everything (or God through Christ) that is a rabbit hole in to the Trinitarian doctrine, which I will reserve the right to return to at another time, as it will be too much of a distraction at this time.

Evolutionary biology, like all forms of science is an ongoing story, all scientists, or at least all good scientists, are forever questioning and investigating their field of study in order to further it and expand upon it, as well as to dismiss incorrect ideas and improve the body of knowledge.
Questioning an idea does not mean it is wrong, it simply means that all theories are always open to question, conformation or rejection, according to the Evidence as it become available.

Guided evolution, is a misnomer, there is a word for it and that is Eugenics or more commonly "Breeding Stock".
Eugenics however does not explain actual evolution and natural adaptation as it is not a natural process.
If the Christian god is a eugenicist one has to conclude he is not very good at it since nature is filled with faults, evolutionary bottlenecks, extinctions and genetic diseases.

"Its one thing to be willing to consider arguments for or against and quite another to say "I have integrated this into my faith." "
True, but this again seems to imply that you see a difference between faith and truth, I personally will always follow the evidence to find truth, rather than seek evidence that might not even exist in order to support unsubstantiated faith.

The word Gnostic comes from the Greek gnōstikos "knowing, good at knowing, able to discern,"
If that is truly how you see yourself, then be true to it and then perhaps (if you will forgive the impudence) as your messiah has it "Seek and ye shall find" Matthew 7:7

@Madisonian
Thinking is a physical process and is subject to empirical investigation, it is called epistemology, neurology or psychoanalytic theory depending upon which way it is approached.
The relationship between what goes on in our brain and the reality in which we exist is called perception, our sense provide our brains with data, that is processed and used to enable survival, the fulfilment of needs and to a lesser extent desires.
This is how science is possible, science is a natural extension of the need to understand the world as we perceive it and to manipulate our responses to our benefit
As for the point regarding the existence or non-existence of a god or gods, when something cannot be proven to exist, there is no need or requirement to prove that it does not exist. It can be accepted that based upon available information that the likelihood of the existence of such a being is at best negligible, and that should the said being actually exist it is actively hiding.

There are several ways to philosophically account for the correspondence between our thinking and reality, there are also a great number of scientific ways, not the least of which is as I have said is perception.
If this is not a problem for the Christian, then it really should be.
The reliability of the correspondence, is a product of our evolution and adaptation to survival within reality, both individually and as a species.

@Madisonian
“So are we just animals ?”
Simple answer Yes, we are just animals, mammals to be specific. We are living organism, we are not plants, nor are we fungi, therefore we are animals. We are not as strong as an elephant, we are not as fast as a cheetah, but we do have very good brains and are capable of problem-solving, that is how we evolved.
The whole point of science came from noticing patterns and testable behaviours in biology, astronomy, the seasons, the tides etc. Our evolved brains noticed this and developed methods to exploit it, such as farming, time measuring, meteorology etc. It was simply survival mechanisms. This also how the philosophers became the fathers of science.
Chaos has a tendency to develop in to order, a form of entropy
The fundamental flaw, of your last statement, is that the entire point of philosophy is the unending search for wisdom in order to know the truth with certainty. Philosophy is derived from the Greek philo- “loving” plus sophis “wise, learned” = the love of wisdom
There are most certainly right and wrong answers, hypotheses are postulated in order to be tested proven or falsified. Those which are elevated to the level of theory and eventually axioms must show repeatability, reliability, and consistency by testing, Those discovered to be false should be discarded as useless.
An opinion is not a fact, an answer that satisfies you may well be true, but it may equally be false, that is why we test ideas, this is why we have the sciences.
For example, if I contend fire consists of superheated gas reacting with oxygen and someone else contends (as was normal for centuries) that fire is created from the release of phlogiston, our opinions are indeed different. However, only one of us is right, and the other is at best mistaken at worst (if they insist on contending a debunked theory is still valid) delusional.
If your opinion is proven to be false, it should be discarded, not retained simply because it satisfies you or is comfortable. That is called living a lie, or in religious circles “Faith”. It is not a reliable path to truth.
Believing something proven to be false for the sake of Faith IS irrational, especially when it leads to the perpetuation of lies, prejudice, wars, and the withholding of actual knowledge and progress.

@Madisonian Forgive me if I address your last post point by point.

But are we merely animals? Merely physical beings
Yes
In any factual subject there are, of course, right and wrong answers or ideas that seem to more credible than others.
What is a non-factual subject?

In philosophy - not so much. There are laws of logic, and we should seek to have our ideas conform to them.
Yes and logic requires facts to of as premises, facts are not opinions, feelings or wild guesses
But then there are the big questions that we have to answer for ourselves that do not easily or even possibly have testable or falsifiable answers.
If something cannot be tested or falsified, we are back to things that we have no reason to believe exist, such as god(s)

Philosophers have exchanges on those - discussions, debates - but they are left unresolved.
No, most have offered hypotheses that have been discredited. Arguments such as the ontological argument, the unmoved mover, the cosmological argument etc, none of which can be tested or falsified because they all proceed from the presupposition that they are explaining something that has been presupposed to exist i.e. god(s) Rather than trying to find ways to prove the existence of that thing.
This is the intrinsic difference between religion and science. Religion assumes an answer and then seeks evidence to back up the assumption. Science examines evidence and deduces from it the likely truth, from which it derives a testable hypothesis.

Some trained philosophers think this way on those and others that way.
Yes, but that does not mean they are all immediately to be presumed to be right
The nature of man - merely an animal or is he a hybrid creature with a spiritual nature as well is one of those questions viewed from a philosophical perspective.
First, produce testable and demonstrable evidence for a spirit, soul, Ka, Bah, pneuma, anima, atman, ethos, essence or quintessence, and then we can discuss this question. However, there is no more evidence for spirit or soul than there is for god(s)

From a Biblical/theological perspective, there is a right answer on that. Christian believe we are made in the image of God - we are rational and so can discover and comprehend the regularities you speak of.
Christians in this sense corrupt the meaning of "Believe" to be synonymous with faith, it is NOT.
I believe things that have been proven to me, I have faith in no thing, because faith requires the suspension of both belief and disbelief, relying instead on revelation

But that is a faith based idea.
Yes it is and literally ANYTHING can be taken on faith. The Christian claims belief in Jehovah based on faith. However, the Hindu also claims the existence of Vishnu to be a matter of faith. According to the doctrine of Christianity and Hinduism, they cannot both be right. Therefore, faith has led one or the other (or both) to "belief" in a falsity

But it is an idea that corresponds to the fact that we can do science.
No, it is not.

I suppose today we no longer need to believe that because science and technology is so pervasive and practical that we have a lot of assurance that research and investigation yields fruit.
We have more than assurance we have hundreds of years of evidence, with each new discovery improving the quality of the knowledge, by further affirmation of correct ideas and the rejection of false one.

But back in the day it was needed, and it was one of the things that led to modern systematic science. In fact, modern science is a product of Western civilization in part because of the faith the earliest pioneers had.
No, it did not. Quite the opposite. Religion and faith lead to massive amounts of suppression of discovery science and knowledge, persecution of scientist and philosophers and the persecution, demonisation and of those who told truths that disproved "Holy Scrip"
Modern science and civilisation are the result of the reformation and enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The late 18th century and 20th centuries saw the gradual taming and curbing of the power of the churches and religion and the separation of church and state. A period that not at all coincidentally correlated with the explosion of science and logically based tolerance of the modern world.
The dark ages were called so BECAUSE the churches suppressed the enlightenment.

Today, as I understand it, there is a philosopher who proposes that things cannot account for themselves.
I seriously suggest you read "In After Method: Mess in Social Science Research" by John Law (2004) before you quote him again so wildly out of context. Firstly, he is NOT a philosopher he is a sociologist, and the quote applies to the politicisation of the social sciences.

If we are only a part of physical reality, we would not be able to do science. We comprehend because the spiritual part of our hybrid nature allows us to step back and ask questions and use our imaginations to devise theories and ingenious ways to test them.
That is nonsense and if you stepped back and looked at your statement objectively you would see it as such.

In other words, such a thing as MIND exists as well as brains.
Again, show me proof of the mind being a separate thing. What we refer to colloquially as MIND is A) Self awareness, B) the normal functioning of the brain, and C) The ability of the human brain to regard the world objectively. It is a physical function of life.

So this is my understanding. It is something that satisfies me.
I'm afraid then you are very easily satisfied, and I am sorry to say driven by existential fear to a state of intellectual laziness

@Madisonian
Okay, here we go again
Paul Copán gained all of his qualifications at unaccredited Christian sponsored universities and bible colleges as are his current past employers, he has NEVER worked or trained at an actual university or college. He styles himself "An expert apologetic", his entire livelihood and reputation is basically based on "Preaching to the choir" in order to maintain his own fan base (many of his own books are required purchases for students taking his own courses, a nice little scam.)
He is not impartial or objective, you may as well be quoting from Kent Hovid and Ken Ham (or worse still Kirk Cameron )
His points are trite and easily debunked and ultimately reduce down to "Ignore them, and they will go away" He builds arguments on presuppositions and theological assumptions. He quotes from like-minded alumni of Jesuit and Lutheran colleges in a reciprocal arrangement and an exercise in mutual back patting.
You are obviously an intelligent person, the level of your correspondence proves that, but you will insist on taking the words of self-proclaimed experts on "blind faith" without seeking to see what has actually motivated their writings.
I ask that you step back and regard this subject more objectively, setting aside your personal views and approach the study of the philosophy, sociology and scientific evolution of religion with an open mind.
I will not insult you by asking you to read the modern popular "Atheist Superstars" such as Dawkins, Hitchen or Sam Harris, instead I will recommend as a starting point the highly distinguished philosopher Bertrand Russell book "Why I am Not a Christian" for a logical cogent and impartial discussion on the rejection of faith and theology. Secondly I recommend Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason, and finally you might find the works of Baruch Spinoza, one of the earliest public proponents of rationalism and Atheism in the western world interesting.

@Madisonian
Oh, one more thing to illustrate the dishonesty of Mr Copán

"Another naturalist philosopher, Ned Block, declares that researchers are “stumped” regarding the emergence of consciousness (or subjective experience)"

Block is a respected scientist and Copán uses one single word as a quote from him to back up his own argument out of contexts and then follows it up with:_

"From matter; there is “nothing—zilch—worthy of being called a research programme” to explain this phenomenon"
Which is NOT a quote from Block, it is a quote from Theologian Peter Williams, made to look as if it is coming from the actual scientist. A cheap, nasty and intellectually dishonest trick.
I thought this might interest you.

@Madisonian
No, I meant exactly what I said.
For example, the rings of Saturn move in almost perfect order, evidence gathered from exploration show the did not always do so, but the chaotic elements in time reduced to dust because of their very nature, leaving only the orderly orbital rings we see today.
An earth bound example is erosion caused by rivers being formed, when the rain water first began to flow as you say, down hill it rushed about chaotically, but in time finding the path of least resistance it formed a channel, then a river causing an orderly less wasteful flow of water back to the sea by the most efficient root.
“Order arise from chaos.” Ilya Prigogine

@Madisonian Everyone who has critically examined your fantasy will disagree either you. To equate faith with science is nothing short of offensive, particularly because you admit that you rely on the Bible as reliable information without any evidence in support.

Your post and comments are nothing more than random unsubstantiated claims that can't be taken seriously by anyone committed to the truth. You will not be a legitimate player in this exchange until you've done your homework of familiarizing yourself with the concepts at play. I think you are afraid to educate yourself because you are afraid to challenge your own beliefs and if that is the case, you had no business posting here in the first place.

He can't know there is a god any more than he can prove there is a god.