Atheists are the greatest threat to ALL religions.

Those that believe in a god/gods are terrified by simple statements proffered by atheists.


Other RELIGIONS are accepted OVER atheist beliefs.

The simple fact is that atheists are a MUCH LARGER threat to their beliefs than those that believe in OTHER gods.


Atheists make the faithful Question....cognitive dissonance is VERY uncomfortable.


Atheists are the true evil - I know because my Fundy-Mom told me so.

Facts and stuff just bounce right off. How else would smart people buy the "woman from a rib" or "animals walked off an ark" crap.

They are all in really bad life situations - but it is all 'his will'.


I wish we could have 'religious interventions'.

I don't BELIEVE anything

Everything.

I'm not sure which Gods/Deities fit into what small part of that, but I'm sure there's a place for all of them.

Atheists believe that the world we live in is WHAT IT IS. Fundies and their ilk believe that they will go to a perfect world when they are raptured and will be happy for time eternal.


Agnostics are unsure WTF is going on.


Agnostics are confused, Atheists are content, Fundie-types are delusional.

They are not mutually exclusive.

that nothing, no evidence whatsoever, would ever convince people who don't believe in a god that one actually does exist. Go around and ask some atheists what would convince them that there really IS a god, and then ask some fundy Xstians what would convince them that there is no god. I guarantee that you'll get more answers of "nothing" from the second group. So please don't lump atheists with closed-minded religious whackadoodles.

And please stop with the nauseating arrogance of agnostics, who haven't the insight and courage to see that just because neither side in an argument is proven to a 100% certainty, shrugging your shoulders in ignorance or granting both sides equal merit does not constitute the intellectual high ground.

Atheists, like scientists and other critical thinkers, will not assert absolute knowledge. Dawkins, Hitchins, Bill Mahar don't. It's a matter of probabilities.

People have worshiped thousands of deities over the centuries. Do you think all of them are real? Many other mythical creatures exist: unicorns, dragons, fairies, etc., for whom the evidence is similar to the evidence for god. Must we accept the reality of all of those.

It's a logical conclusion, not an absolute certitude. So your statement is false.

--imm

...for what words mean.

about Santa Claus (i.e. "Well...we just can't be sure whether Santa exists or not, and we'll never be able to prove it one way or another, so I'll sit squarely on the fence") the "only clear thinker" on the subject?

Agnostics are either atheistic or theistic. Agnosticism is an epistemological position not an ontological one.

Weak atheists are the ones with the position regarding gods that is often erroneously assigned to agnostics, who actually only have an opinion about whether and how we can know the answer, not what the answer is.

:hi:

Atheism is a simple concept, meaning to be "without gods." Agnostics, whether they like it or not, generally fall into this category. Those who do not are the rare agnostics who claim to worship an unknowable God or gods, and those few are therefore "with gods."

Where's the hair splitting? Could it be the agnostics who wish to deny that atheism envelopes their position?

Theism is the belief in gods

Gnosticism is the belief that knowledge can be gained via mystically revealed certainty.

The negative of each is not that hard to work out.

tend to be difficult, with the Attitude, touchiness and snideness (like yours) rather than discuss so that more people might understand.

Another topic where IF that occurred, discussion among those who THINK they know would surprise each other.

Even from this discussion there is much more variety to opinions about this than your simplistic version.

Thank you.

1) Those who understand what these words mean and try to use them appropriately. (most honest people with a vague interest in the subject)

2) Those who understand what these words mean but disnigenuously pretend not to, or intentionally spread misinformation, almost universally in an attempt to make atheists look dogmatic and irrational. Some atheists ARE so (strong atheists) but they are a tiny minority, and known to be so by this group 2, who still dishonestly portray the situation as if ALL atheists were strong atheists.

3)Those who do not understand what these words mean. (a small minority who can be broken down into two subsets)
a)Those who have been subject to the misinformation of group 2) and who thus erroneously believe that agnosticism is a "middle way" between theism and atheism when the two are really a binary condition. These people either accept correction and become part of group 1 or become group 2 themselves if they resist it.
b)Those who simply weren't familiar with the terms at all and who decide to join groups 1 or 2 on having it explained to them.

Group 3 is a transitory group. Nobody stays in group 3 for more than a few visits to R/T threads which touch on this subject (a huge number). If you've been here more than a few days you are either group 1 or group 2.

To decide whether you are in group 1 or group 2 (generic you) ask yourself the following questions

If I claim to be a millionaire, can you draw a distinction between people who simply ask me for proof, and people who assume that it is impossible I am one? Can you further distinguish between either of those people, and someone who claims it is impossible for anyone to ever know for sure whether I am a millionaire if I don't provide proof either way?

If you answer "yes" then simply change the object claimed and believed into "the existence of gods" instead of "I am a millionaire" and you have the definition of weak atheist (most atheists), Strong atheists (a few atheists) and agnostics (a completely separate group that is based on the question of knowledge not existence) in that order, and you can welcome yourself to group 1.

If you cannot see the difference, try again and ask for clarification. If you pretend you can't, welcome yourself to group 2.

I for one am fascinated by the concept of gods, and so certainly think about it quite often. No doubt Terry Pratchett thinks of trolls more often than most. I am pretty sure he does not believe they exist. Why does it matter in the discussion of what words mean?

So which part of the analogy do'nt you understand, or are you proud to be a group 2'er?

- Stephen Colbert

It shows a total ignorance for the definition of what the words "atheists" and "god-believers" mean.

- If you have no good arguments, it's best to remain silent than to show your ignorance.

Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge while atheism and theism are statements about belief.

You either believe in one or more gods or you do not believe in one or more gods.

The atheist/theist system is a simple binary system which is only complicated in the minds of those who do not like the label atheist or theist, but a rose by any other name...

I am a complete freak i guess. i think there's energy in all of us, but I have no idea what it is. But I believe the divine (the energy, or whatever people think "god" is) is in us, and in nature and in the universe. There is no supernatural god. so am i an atheist or a theist?!

and minimizes the awesome complexity that is our natural world. In short, it does a disservice to both the concept of "everything" and the concept of "God".

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Fundies don't get nuance and the fine art of storytelling to teach. They are black and white thinkers and won't be shaken by any amount of rational anything. They know what they know and that's that! Sad little creatures.

Do the sane religions consider those allegories as well?

And many others have done a good job at blaming an entire group of people for the actions of some in said group.

You don't believe in Islam, Buddha, Odin, Krishna, Eris Discordia, Bob The SubGenius, etc etc etc.

You're just not 100%.

I was in San Fransisco once, walking along the Golden Gate Bridge, and I saw this guy on the bridge about to jump. So I thought I'd try to stall and detain him, long enough for me to put the film in. I said, "Don't jump!" and he turns... You've heard of the elephant man. He was kind of like that, he had a, well, you could say he had the head of a horse. And my heart went out to him. I said, "Why the long face?"

He said, "'Cause all my life people have called me mean names like horses-head or Flicka or chess-piece or Trigger..."

I said, "Well, don't worry about it, Ed. It can't be that bad."

He said, "My girlfriend's suing me!"

I said, "For palomino?"

He said, "Why was I put on this Earth?"

I said, "My friend, anywhere else you wouldn't stand a chance."

He said, "Nobody loves me."

I said, "God loves you, you silly ninny."

He said, "How do you know there's a God?"

I said, "Of course there's a God. Do you think that billions of years ago a bunch of molecules floating around at random could someday have had the sense of humor to make you look like that?"

He said, "I do believe in God."

I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"

He said, "A Christian."

I said, "Me too. Protestant or Catholic?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! What franchise?"

He says, "Baptist."

I said, "Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"

He says, "Northern Baptist."

I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He says, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reform Baptist?"

He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist."

I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?"

He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region."

I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"

He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I said, "Die, heretic scum!" And I pushed him over!

First, it's an argument completely irrelevant to what we are talking about which is the threat to the religious point of view posed by those who manage to live without it.

Atheists are simply those who do not believe in god. We are not a "group of people" that includes either the entire Soviet or Chinese empires. This is a star man argument designed to change the subject and you know it. Those countries were not atheist states. They were communist states that replaced oppressive, dogmatic monarchies that ruled over ignorant, subjegated people with other oppressive, dogmatic governance. Anyway, the best you can claim about this argument is that theocracies are no worse whan communist states. Replacing the dogma of the churches or of imperial China with different dogmas is not what most of us here see as atheism. Besides, you cannot discount the role religion had in causing the anti-clerical backlash of communism.

On the other hand nonreligious societies tend to have fewer social problems and less crime than religious ones. In this country, there are hardly any nonbelievers in prison. The idea that subjective beliefs have no bearing on what people do may be politically correct, but have you ever compared it to reality? If it's not true, then it doesn't matter what the motivation behind it is.

:P

Are you that uncomfortable with your god?

Why is your god not smiting me? Do you believe you are doing 'his' will?

Do you really believe your all powerful god is so desperately in need?

Narcissism is not a holy attribute.

God does not mean all powerful, anyone who has studied the bible (or other works) knows that.

wars, slavery, misogyny, ..... whatever the $$$$ powers that controlled the religion/god needed them to be.


If there was a god she/he would have eradicated the sociopathic minions that claim his/her name.

God's powers are limited, so he/she cannot simply eradicate some things.

WTF? GOD IS GOD IS GOD IS RULER OF THE UNIVERSE AND ALL OF US.............


Are you seriously saying that his/her powers are LIMITED?????



WTF?


What kind of god is that?

Much the same as the rest of us. Even athiests have No God as they understand No God. I have a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses as I understand them. None of us are right or wrong or we are. And no one, no one at all has ever convinced anyone of anything that would change their view of deity as they have come to understand deity. You mentioned earlier that you are happy being an atheist. Good, be happy and please don't predicate your happiness on convincing one single person of your "rightness" because you will go right back into unhappiness. I'm happy to stand beside atheists and theists and let it all get sorted out when we die, or not.

"God's powers are limited, so he/she cannot simply eradicate some things."


With such a declarative statement, it is clear
that he gets this information straight from
GAWD....

Do you want to risk being smitten? Smote? Smitted?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Logically there is no god.

You can argue from there.

I have never been called an 'asshole' - you are the 1st.

Cognitive dissonance calling you on line 2.

I personally don't care if you believe in God or not, but I do object to being called "stupid" by those like you who feels so poorly about themselves they've got to put down others.

dg

actually the only requirement to be an atheist, is to not believe in gods. Anything and everything else is up to the unique individual.

...so be it. Those that have their lives wound up in cloud being belief should just brush us off as a flea....

The problem is that we make them question.... cognitive dissonance is a PAINFUL experience.



PS - for BELIEVERS - I was a very happy believer.

Cognitive Dissonance is ugly, and I only recommend it for the STRONG.

I never had a problem with the fact that others believed differently, or that others didn't believe. I guess some people are just far more insecure in their beliefs considering how much external validation they require for them.

My change was brutal, yet my brain would not let me go back. 10 years later - it's all peaceful and very productive.

How peaceful is it for you, really?

are personally very comfortable with that aspect of their worldview. What keeps it from being "peaceful" is the way that we are always having the religious beliefs of others imposed on us and shoved down our throats, often by elected officials in blatant violation of the law. If that didn't happen, you wouldn't see much if any of what you naively label as "prosyletizing".

It's not my religion and yeah, I don't like it when Christianity is touted as the only religion there is, but I have so much else to be enraged about.

go back to burning or hanging witches before you'd "get up the gumption to care?"

and that was two more than I needed to settle comfortably into my belief system. And I have no need to have deity intervene in my little life. I handle this part and she can show me the other part later. Before the three (one a near death experience) I was a doubter and I agree, it is for the strong and while I am one strong woman, I'm happy to have resolved, for myself, what my system of belief is. I think the Christians like to call it "the peace that passeth understanding" but they love to pretend to know and love the King's English, so whatever, it kind of encapsulates my POV.

I'm not exactly sure how I ended up over here, as I rarely talk religion, because everyone has an idea that they must communicate and convince others with. It just seems Sisyphean and silly.

edit: recd

Narcissist paranoid sociopathic god - ya know, the mega church god - the one that bestows riches on the most evil in the flock.

Believers, or atheists? :*

I have ever been sure recognized that there is "Nothing to be done."

I believe that makes you a sub-genius, at the least...

:+

I adore the Church Of The Subgenius. Bob Dobbs is in my Pantheon.

Is accepting the religious status quo "thinking?" Is being concerned about a religious back-lash thinking?

his strange theological writings. After that, come back and try to defend the thesis that brilliant folk can't have some odd ideas

Those that are fearful embrace religion.



I say that from many relatives perspectives.


It is fascinating.

understand their motives for being religious or can summarize all their experiences in a few words

Immortality is not necessarily the motive everyone has for becoming religious

Many Buddhists, for example, will speak of reincarnation -- yet for many Buddhists, it is a thing to overcome. And in some Buddhist traditions, belief in reincarnation is not a belief in a permanent soul but a psychological metaphor describing the stream of consciousness as one idea is successively replaced by another

But I will say that the concept of 'the force' makes sense to me from a scientific standpoint,

Energy............

The force is taken from a concept of the collective unconscious which posits that underneath our day to day consciousness we are all connected psychically.

I wouldn't confuse force and energy.

Are you really saying there's "scientific sense" in the idea of "the force"?

Maybe you need to leave science out of this.

but the things I saw don't encourage me to want to have anything to do with atheism. From a personal perspective, that would be rude to a Goddess who has been there for me when I needed extra strength. But, the feeling of rudeness is all on my side, I think. She is endlessly amused with my human foibles. She helps when it's absolutely necessary, not when I think she should. Mostly, she sits back and laughs. I believe she finds me highly amusing. That, or I'm crazy.

And yeah, if anyone wants to talk about the ketamine reaction in a dying brain, I'll be happy to talk about it. Maybe, my seeing God was my dying brain sending me on one last psychedelic experience, but given that the time seemed endless, does it really matter if Heaven only lasts until my brain stops firing? Really, without a clock, who gets to or needs to define eternity?

a significant phenomenon.

What is/are its evolutionary function(s)? Do other species have anything like this? Similarities? Differences?

And as with any image - ation (sorry about the clumsy neologism there, but I like that better than "imagery" or "imagination" because it has less cultural baggage) . . . why THIS image-ation and NOT some other? Certainly you can make a nice functional Jungian/evolutionary case for why ketamine does what it does at that particular moment, but I just guess it's the profound intimacy and power of those connections to WhateverIs that I find so Truly awesome that, even with its inherent human limitations, even out of the very tiniest tips of branches that continue to Reach, No Matter What, even there, for me, it fits the function of what a "god" would be.

Have you seen The Road yet? Or read Cormac McCarthy's book?

Funny thing, I didn't have the walking towards the bright light thing that I've heard about. I felt I was being pulled into a vortex and I wanted to go there so desperately. I forced myself to come back because I lost my mother when I was eight and my child had just turned eight. Coming back was one of the hardest things I ever did. Climbing back into an earth heavy body with the pain and difficulty breathing it was having was awful but I just couldn't do that to my kid. Funny, while writing that, I realized how depersonalized it sounds and it really was. That body, my body was and is a vessel only.

And like I said, even if it was ketamine, it was timeless until I decided to come back. I really can't explain it any better than that because there aren't words to adequately explain it. I went to some forums for those who had had near death experiences and even we couldn't communicate the it of it to one another very well.

:evilgrin:


Thank you for sharing very personal experiences. Once one experiences consciousness as separate from the body ....... that's not a question any more.

I wasn't going to phrase it that way because I didn't really want to start a flame war, but yeah, for me, I no longer wonder or question. But neither do I think what I felt was anything but personal to this soul and this vessel.

:toast: :hi:

:toast:

by posting links to some studies showing that schizophrenics tended to be more logical than the population at large

Human intelligence and psychology are non-trivial topics. It's not uncommon to find people brilliantly insightful in some ways and blind or bizarre in others

I can contemplate Eternity yet have trouble holding a normal conversation. :rofl:

Euclid alone has looked on Beauty bare.
Let all who prate of Beauty hold their peace,
And lay them prone upon the earth and cease
To ponder on themselves, the while they stare
At nothing, intricately drawn nowhere
In shapes of shifting lineage; let geese
Gabble and hiss, but heroes seek release
From dusty bondage into luminous air.
O blinding hour, O holy, terrible day,
When first the shaft into his vision shone
Of light anatomized! Euclid alone
Has looked on Beauty bare. Fortunate they
Who, though once only and then but far away,
Have heard her massive sandal set on stone.

http://www.sonnets.org/millay.htm#217


The whole of human experience is a strange realm

Thank you for that. The sandal slam is still reverberating .............

I personally know a couple of crazy geniuses.

Newton was clearly nutty and brilliant.

I asked too many questions and got "you need to take it on faith" too many times. I got out before I was twenty. I always believed in something beyond us, just not that. Nowadays, though, Jesus is welcome in my Pantheon but Yahweh is not. He doesn't play well with others. And my life is far to finite to put up with his childish shit. He's not my toddler so I'm not stuck with him. I'll let the Christians and the Jewish folks figure out what to do with him.

"Yahwah" :cry: :spray:

So how do you explain that animals don't build shrines for worship?

Critical thinking is what kills religions, not atheists. And religion of any kind falls apart under the simplest critical analysis. I'd much rather someone become an atheist after some thinking and research rather than simply be a trendy or rebellious atheist.

Atheists as a group aren't threatening to fundies. They can serve as a scapegoat "other" for whatever is the issue of the moment. However what is threatening is the fact that more and more people are leaving their faith or eschewing it altogether. Science is explaining in a mundane way what was once considered a miracle from god. And not only are people leaving religion, they're also openly advocating leaving religion. That you can be good without religion. And to pour salt on the wound, they expose the fallacies of religious beliefs often using the holy texts themselves.

The reason why fundies aren't that concerned with other religions is that they figure it will be easier to convert them to theirs. Of course when it comes down to it, they hate adherents of other faiths with the same passion as atheists. Google Islam on any right-wing site.

Athiests ARE the biggest threat to ANY religion.

We do these weird things like quote scripture. Jesus was an incredible man - I have 'faith' he existed and tried to save humanity from itself.

The FACTS are that the christian religion has been utilized for war, slavery, and monarchy to such a degree that it has become a joke.

If ya wanna say that's all in the past - fine - but the ##### of priests involved in 'boy toying' is beyond sick.

Those that refuse to believe in the one true God and his son Jesus Christ are terrified by simple statements proffered by Christians.


Other false RELIGIONS are accepted OVER christian beliefs.

The simple fact is that Christians are a MUCH LARGER threat to their beliefs than those that believe in OTHER false gods.


Christians make the faithless question....and living in sin is VERY uncomfortable.


Christians are the true evil - I know because my Pagan-Mom told me so.

I've seen more than I think you can even concieve of.

I was an alter girl on an AF base.

I sang solos at our AF church.............


It is interesting that you are 'anonymous171' - I put my whole life out for all to see - you are 'anonymous'


I am not ashamed about anything - how about you?

They believe these things for different "reasons", i.e. their beliefs are derived from different things. Though they may speak the same language, they use different semantics and different semiotics. They don't actually have anything comprehensible to say to one another. They are, thus, only threats to one another to those who do not know what each is.

The very idea that someone believes in something that is UN-PROOVABLE (because one has some property known as "faith") AND is threatened by someone who says there is no RATIONAL reason/PROOF to believe in a "God" - - this idea is essentially and absurdly contradictory.

and yes, there's a big difference between the two statements- but theists generally have a hard time wrapping their heads around it.

It's late; I'm getting sloppy.

My point about evidence still stands.

Consider the statement, "I'm not a girl." That's pretty negative, right? You wanna bet that I can't prove it?

And exactly how many negatives do I have to prove to render that statement false?

So don't let me catch you saying you can't prove a negative.:spank:

--imm

:hi:

Otherwise we seem to be happy, healthy and logical.

"I see no evidence of _________________, therefore it does not exist."

The logical thing is to say simply, "I have no evidence of ________________," because rationally that's all you K - N - O - W, i.e. that you see no evidence.

To make a rational statement about the existence of God, one would first have to have a workable definition and, then, all things in all possible universes would have to be tested in all possible relationships to all other things in all possible universes. Once that is done, it is possible to logically say "There is no God." Failing that empirical evidence, all you have is limited empirical evidence that does not support belief, which doesn't mean that much anyway, since belief is not about evidence in the first place as I observed in my post upthread.

edited: to remove using an inability to prove a negative as evidence of belief.

I wish they had studied more in HS or college.

I really do feel sorry for them.


Ignorance can be overcome - stupidity - not so much.

that could be referred to as "God", how could we say anything valid about it?

P.S. See upthread reference to "Waiting for Godot"

I gotta toss the kids in bed and myself.

good night!

:hi:

posting in between loads.:D

:hi:

refer to, so we use stories to make the unknowable a little more understandable and accessible. He helped me so much to re-access my spiritual side after I ran away from Southern Baptist Christianity. I didn't go back to Christianity - there are things there that just don't work for me, but after my year of learning with him and Joseph Campbell, I don't have the problem I used to have with Christianity.

That's a stupid statement

And as you point out, it all comes down to how -- or if -- we define "God."

IMHO and as much as I know about it "Methinks atheists doth protest too much."

no God (which gets us into the logical problems associated with proving a negative), but that they DON'T BELIEVE that there is a God and there is a difference, as to whether it's a BELIEF or not in those two statements. However, the second statement, the one that I am told is more of an accurate representation of atheism, does seem to be a bit of a non-sequitur, because it goes something like this - Based on my limited experience, I see no evidence of God, therefore I do not believe in God - when belief has nothing to do with evidence and evidence has nothing to do with belief in the first place, so why bring belief up? It does appear as you say, "Methinks atheists doth protest too much."

Why not just say something like, "Based upon this definition of 'God', __________________________, I have no evidence of God."

It really does point up the semantic flaws in the same way that saying "There are no absolutes" does, because the complete form of that statement would be, "There are no absolutes and that statement is so true that even it is not an absolute."

We make these kinds of errors when we mistake language for being the same thing as that to which language ONLY refers. What was the reality of these and other things before there were words?

My hat off to you.

There is a wide range of types of aetheists, which some DUers are helpful in describing.

You're comments about language are well taken. Do aetheists need to call themselves something -- or call God or the Unknown something -- rather then just say "I don't know?"

I don't know. :hi:

now to make your post have any point at all, please point me to a single atheist who shows "active disbelief." Show me someone who claims "There is NO god."

You are looking for a fight. I'm not.

I'm not looking for a fight, I'm looking for simple substantiation. Point to someone who espouses "active disbelief", if you can.

I believe this distinction has been gone over countless times, OM.

Do you really think that the meaning of the word "god" is in dispute?

The Buddha, of all people, after all, thought belief in deities and dogmatic creeds was not necessary for enlightenment. :)

except that's not the way it works.

An atheist does not simply say "I see no evidence of God, therefore God does not exist." As far as my experience goes, it is never that simple, because atheists know that this simple statement makes an illogical leap.

It is more appropriate to say, and more frequently said, that "I see no evidence of God, and everything I DO have evidence of shows an incredibly low probability for God, so therefore I don't believe that God exists."

I have never in my life met anyone who claims "God does not exist." "I don't believe in God," "There probably is no God," "It is incredibly unlikely that the Christian God exists"...These are all statements I have heard and read made by other atheists and myself, but since it is completely impossible to PROVE a negative, we don't claim God DOESN'T exist.

The problem is, many people like to package the atheist argument into the short little sentence "There is no God." This may be a rhetorically convenient action, but it is also a straw man argument.

I sorta always called myself an atheist, but what I think is that - if there is a god, I want no part of him because he allows too much pain and suffering (and too many Republicans). He would have to be not only uncaring, but actually mean and vindictive. Who needs that? I imagine that this "god" everyone talks about is a scientist who has created a tiny universe (us) in his laboratory and is just watching the creaturs in it as scientific curiosities. This entity would seem like a "god" to us, wouldn't he? Some scientists are actually saying that it might be possible to create a small universe in a lab. Then they would become "gods" themselves.

Actually, you can prove a negative -- by the indirect method. You hypothesize it's opposite, and follow the implications until you hit a contradiction. :)

If you disprove the opposite, then the negative must be true. It doesn't disprove all possible gods, only the ones you can visualize.

--imm

it doesn't necessarily prove a negative.

In fact, that only happens in binary situations. "Is the light on?" "No." That means that the negative of the light being on, the light being off, is true and proven.

But we're not talking about a binary situation. The claim "there is a god" requires that the indirect proof of the negative encompass ALL gods. You must be able to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that ALL gods ever conceived, or that will ever be conceived, are false. That's why no one actually says "there is no god." Instead, the argument is "there probably is no god" or "I don't have any reason to believe in a god."

We have compelling evidence in physics and energetics to show that the supernatural does not exist. This NEARLY proves the negative, but not quite. There COULD be a god-like being that is entirely natural and basically Q from Star Trek. We can't prove there isn't one, but there's absolutely no reason to believe in his existence.

To test a god, you have to specify his properties. Then you can shoot him down. My post says that it doesn't disprove all gods just the one under scrutiny. I made it a binary situation. That's how you prove a negative.

I further hypothesize that you can't propose a god that doesn't lead to contradictions. (Can't prove that one though.)

--imm

And I agree with your last statement, and even if we can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, history teaches us that it is a very decent hypothesis.

There are no married bachelors for example.

That phrase in this context is simply (admittedly sloppy) shorthand for "you cannot prove a universal negative without universal knowledge, which is clearly impossible itself, unless the construct is internally contradictory".

You can't prove gods don't exist by saying "there are none wherever and however we have looked" however true that is, because it is impossible for us to look every where and with every means of detection.

Luckily, we don;t need to, as assertions must be supported, and before we even get to "there are no gods" then the concept of a god has to be defined. It is at that point that the assertuon will possibly include the idea that this god exists, (if it doesn't, we are dealing with a simple story). If the assertion about existence is made, it must be defended.

Atheism is nothing more than the act of saying "you haven't sufficiently defnded your assertion that your god(s) exist". No more.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god

# S: (n) God, Supreme Being (the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions)
# S: (n) deity, divinity, god, immortal (any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)
# S: (n) god (a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people) "he was a god among men"
# S: (n) idol, graven image, god (a material effigy that is worshipped) "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god"

To sum up, any single, personified being that can be worshipped.

"To sum up, any single, personified being that can be worshipped."

The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists or weak atheists. The general idea is "There is no evidence of a god or gods, and it's fallacious to believe in things for which no evidence is given." Atheist simply means someone that doesn't believe in a god or gods. (A = not theist = believer in god or gods)
It can also be argued that gods are logically impossible, therefore you end up with the other kind of atheist: Gnostic or strong atheists.

Most of us are agnostic toward deities in general but seem to trend gnostic towards specific gods because of their logical impossibility. There actually are things that can be discounted simply because they're logically impossible. No one would ever admit the possibility of a stove that burns fear or a mountain made of happy. Likewise, an omniscient and perfect being that's capable of changing its mind, feeling remorse, or being surprised puts the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god on the far end of the unlikely scale. (See Genesis, the flood myth, testing people to see what'll happen, etc.)

As the definition of a deity becomes more specific, the chances of landing on a logical impossibility become more and more likely. Conversely, as a deity becomes less and less specific, the definition becomes more and more generic and useless. At some point while becoming more and more specific, the deity becomes logically impossible. At some point while moving in the direction of vagueness to prevent logical contradictions, the deity moves into "Well who cares, then?" territory.

you should know not to attribute positions to your opponents that they don't hold. A more honest and accurate characterization of the atheist position would be:

"I do not see sufficient evidence of X, therefore I withhold belief in X", or "There are better and more likely explanations for the way the world looks than to assume on faith that X exists, and I choose to accept those explanations."

It is also possible to rationally and logically state "The reasons that other people believe in X are all baloney, and I am therefore completely justified in saying affirmatively that X is made up nonsense and does not exist, in spite of what appears to be evidence to the contrary."

However, I would say, there is no "workable definition of god." Any that you could propose would imply some contradiction either in logic, or with observed phenomena. Go ahead and try. Or you could reduce expectation, and go with an atheist's god like Spinoza or Einstein, that hardly qualifies as a god at all.

--imm

They do. Thank you, you made me point.

:hi:

:cry:

...then of course what you said was very offensive.

:hi: it's the pig whose skin is too thin, stretched to bursting over all that foul ego and bluster .....

How uncivilized.

that is your problem.

Your last comment was pretty much "No! You are!", but with slightly upgraded wording.

And if asked why you so often argue this way, no doubt your response would be something equivalent to, "He started it first!".

If you would like another opportunity to not seem like a bad attitude coming out of left field for no reason than to be nasty, please take advantage of it.

"Atheists are the greatest threats to themselves", with the little smartass :hi: added for good measure. With you starting out like that, my response is hardly "coming out of left field".

But I guess you walk around with such a big chip on your shoulder that you can always site all past experiences in any other conversation as someone else "starting it first", so now you can jump in anywhere with any bit of random snark and consider yourself blameless.

"walk around with such a big chip on your shoulder that you can always site all past experiences in any other conversation as someone else "starting it first", so now you can jump in anywhere with any bit of random snark and consider yourself blameless."

Sorry you couldn't manage your last chance to be a civil and decent correspondent. :hi:

some ability to tolerate cognitive dissonance:

... let me make a general observation -- the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise ...
The Crack-Up
By F. Scott Fitzgerald <1936>
http://www.esquire.com/features/the-crack-up

Every useful circle of ideas has some limitations: one does not insist that music should cure dysentery, nor that photochemists should explain black holes; one does not expect poetry to solve political problems nor philosophical discourse to shed light on lost languages; one cannot wash the dishes by mathematical reasoning; and so on. People with multiple interests usually know how to shift between different frames: only cranks insist there is one pure method to which all others must be subordinated

Religious fundamentalists seem to me to number about the cranks: they are quite sure that they are right and that everyone else is wrong, scarcely a condition allowing productive conversation. Among the non-fundamentalists of various religions, one can find many interesting people, and I can't see much point to insulting them by confusing them with the fundamentalists

The sad thing is that our country has been dumbed down to such a degree that their counter-intuitive viewpoints resonate w/ a large # of 'reality TV' ppl.


I don't have time to go into details (tired)..... But HELLO - WTF???? Do You Really Not Get It?


Seriously.

the ways American corporate media is used -- not to inform people but (1) to produce a continuing anxiety that helps sell products and (2) to maintain an obsession with opinions (rather than facts) that prevents people from analyzing situations clearly and working for change

The rightwing wackos have their ideological position carefully mapped and have a standard defense of their ideological territory in response to full frontal assaults. Simply charging their trenches produces an entirely predictable exchange of volleys, which is pointless and uninteresting

I rather prefer not to discuss issues in terms of worn-out dichotomies such as:

capitalism vs. the godless,
evolution vs. the religious,
faith vs. intelligence,

and so on. Engaging in these fruitless ideological conflicts prevents people from doing genuine, important, and difficult work, like identifying real issues, analyzing the actual components of the power structure, understanding the psychology of persuadable people in the middle, &c&c

They seem to be doing a good job.

Oh lord, if you exist, please protect me from your followers.

I am a believer, you are presumably not. Neither of us can prove our position and I'm comfortable with that. So long as my right to worship is respected, it makes no odds to me if others choose not to.

I am in Jemez Springs (NM) and the world is spiraling around me.........

The beauty that surrounds me (and as I remember, that is also true of the area you reference) makes it so easy to feel at one with the earth and whatever else may or may not be there. It makes me sad that we humans think it's okay to foul our nest. And no, She isn't going to sweep in and save the day. She rightly expects us to do that or suffer the consequences. Any other response would be treating us as stupid, supplicant children and my God/dess respects us too much to play cosmic mommy. We will learn and we will save ourselves or we won't.

I think that faith is a journey and each of us has our own path to walk.

:P

Atheists are believers in their acceptance of science and fact - not belief and denial.

As should all Christians, Jews, Muslim, Buddhists, Hindus, Satanists and every other kind of human.

Because everyone must die when their time comes.


Except for the guy in that old Twilight Zone episode that got the life sentence.


Oh, and TV and movie vampires.
If you don't consider them dead already, that is.

Sad.....18 or so rec's I've been placed in the 9-11 dungeon before - but it's been awhile.



Sad that REALITY BASED THINKING gets us sent here.

Mega-churches are fronts for brainwashing the weak-minded,

that it's Christianity or "organized" religion you have a problem with? Is that right?

And why do you think your mom represent all believers? Do you think that none of the faithful like questioning?

Again, I don't know what you mean when you say "atheist beliefs" but I am sure I prefer to have my child being taught by an atheist teacher, for example, then some crazy fundy even when your mom teaches you otherwise.

Of course, as a Pagan, I am very comfortable that there are people out there who don't believe that there is any sort of God. Neither of us is wrong or right, just have different opinions on certain issues. And even though I've had transcendent experiences, that doesn't bolster "my side" nor do I care. I'm not a proselytizer and don't care to be proselytized to, whether by Southern Baptists (raised by them, know their shtick by heart) nor by atheists. Live and let live and let it all shake out after death, or not.

more or less the same physical phenomena.

It's a childish view of God and of faith and sounds as if its coming from a very reactionary position, born out of a deep hurt and anger.

If there was a god she/he would have eradicated the sociopathic minions that claim his/her name.

Yeah, screw that "free will" stuff. :sarcasm: That's the old "God should be powerful enough to clean up my mess, but not so powerful as to prevent me from making it in the first place" argument. Nice job on foisting responsibility elsewhere.

The problem is that we make them question.... cognitive dissonance is a PAINFUL experience.

No, the problem is you are just as confrontational as the turn-or-burn sidewalk preacher types. Quite honestly, you're two sides of the same coin, yet the more "intelligent, rational" minds of anti-theists of your persuasion are too blind to see it. It's the same logical error that's been repeated here over and over, the refusal to distinguish between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists. Setting up and believing in a strawman, stereotype of an argument (Brains is the greatest threat to all Religions, those that are fearful embrace religion, that the faithful are ignorant and stupid) is showing the world that your arguments are not based in logic and rational thinking but are rooted in emotion.

Doubt and questions are a natural, and healthy, part of faith. It's through these doubts and questions that faith, knowledge, wisdom, and understanding all grow. But, like you said, it's only recommended for the strong. Those that can't deal usually accept everything on blind faith or reject everything out of hand. Both positions are indicative of immature intellects.

Atheists are believers in their acceptance of science and fact - not belief and denial.

What is this supposed to mean? That old canard "believers and science don't mix"? As a believer, and a scientist for nearly half my life, I can tell you that this sweeping generalization is nothing more than a crock of baloney.

:evilgrin:

was that a violation of free will? Is it your position that God does not intercede in human affairs because that would violate their free will?

Nice job on foisting responsibility elsewhere.

Since the OP doesn't believe in God, how can it be that s/he is trying to push responsibility onto God? How does the OP's culpability or absolution therefrom come into this at all?

Those that can't deal usually accept everything on blind faith or reject everything out of hand. Both positions are indicative of immature intellects.

If you ask questions about a set of beliefs, and then reject those beliefs when the questions are not answered to your satisfaction, that is a sign of immaturity? Why is it more mature to accept something than to reject it, given insufficient evidence?

Hooo-kay.

Do you believe that God struck anyone dead, turned them into a pillar of salt, or had them mauled to death by a bear? if you disbelieve all of those parts of the Bible, why those and not others?

I belong to a denomination that has no trouble with modern science or the ancient tradition of allegorical interpretation, which has been just as common through the ages as literal interpretation.

Why?


Please explain to me why some biblical texts are taken literally and others not ???

as well as scholarly Biblical criticism, and we have since the late nineteenth century.

I am currently in the third year of an Episcopal course for lay people in which we study the Bible and church history. One of the things we learned in the first year was the structure of the book of Genesis, with at least three different authors and among other things, two different versions of Noah's story. (This was actually review for me, since I learned the same thing at my Lutheran college nearly forty years ago.)

that you still haven't answered the original question, which wanted to know what parts of the Bible you DO take literally (if any), and why those and no others? It's a question that the "liberal" and "progressive" Christians on this board seem to be reluctant to address.

For example, the existence of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah is independently attested, and it's likely that a lot of the things recorded in Samuel through Chronicles are based on fact.

We also know from linguistic evidence that of the so-called "five books of Moses," Deuteronomy was written after the return from the Babylonian exile, probably written as a refresher course in "Judasiam 101" for the returnees from Babylon and then "found" in the ruins of the temple.

The character of Jesus is pretty consistent across the Synoptic Gospels (selfishness bad, generosity good; prejudice bad, acceptance good;just following the rules bad, living the spirit of the rules good, etc.), but it's clear that the Gospel of John is a later work designed to blend Christian doctrine with Greek philosophy.

Linguistic evidence tells us that Paul didn't write some of the letters that are attributed to him and that the "John" who wrote Revelation was the not the "John" who wrote the Gospel of John. Gospel John writes beautiful, elegant Greek, while Revelation John writes very poor Greek.

Revelation is an allegory against the Roman Empire, not a prophecy of the end of the world.

I'm not going to go through the whole Bible for you, but generally, it's all context. My denomination declares that its doctrines rest on the three-legged school of Scripture, tradition, and reason.

is that everyone is free to pretty much make up their own religion as they go, if God doesn't say that anything is literal and absolute and if everything is subject to each individual's personal interpretation.

But all human religions are approximations. God's too big to care about whether we believe X, Y, and Z.

all human religions are inventions, you'd be much closer to the truth. And what is the notion that "God's too big to care" but another invention, and a way to morph your religion into something as immune from rational examination as possible?

which I don't. I'm trying to find out what Sal thinks about it, since the statement that I was responding to strongly implies that something like the flood could never have happened, regardless of whether or not the flood story itself is true.

The implication I draw from what Sal wrote is that s/he thinks God never visits retribution on living people for their sins. I'm trying to find out whether that's actually what Sal believes. Even if the flood story is a metaphor, I don't know what else one might draw from it if it is not actually about punishment for the wicked.

Additionally, how do you identify "mainstream Christians"? Is there some objective way to tell who is mainstream, or is it arbitrary?

ELCA Lutherans, United Methodists (most of them), Episcopalians, Presbyterians, UCCs, American Baptists (not Southern Baptists), and a few other Protestant denominations that are NOT of the fundamentalist/evangelical megachurch variety, as well as Catholics (who are not Biblical literalists) and Eastern Orthodox.

The majority of Lutherans in the US are LCMS. Plus, when a congregation has the word Evangelical in its name, it seems a little odd to call it pointedly NOT evangelical.

Aside from that, I find it interesting that it seems to be mostly the older religions that have moved beyond biblical literalism.

And on biblical literalism, here's my problem: How does a metaphorical and allegorical Bible make the case for God? Actually, if you'll accept the question as a genuine inquiry and not a snide remark, I think I can make my point a little better: What makes the metaphorical and allegorical Bible as scripture any more valid than the Tibetan Book of the Dead, or the numerous other works that people once considered holy?

I don't know about the relative strength of the LCMS (the fact that you know that abbreviation suggests that you were brought up in it, in which case I can hardly blame you for being turned off to religion, even more so if you were brought up :shudder: Wisconsin Synod.) and the ELCA, but wherever I've been, the ELCA congregations have been larger than the LCMS, even though the LCMS are more evenly distributed geographically.

(The LCMS actually lost a good chunk of their membership during the Seminex dispute in the 1980s. The dissidents joined the ELCA. I'm not sure what percentage

I'm not an excluvist. I believe that all human attempts to describe God are just approximations. I don't know the Tibetan Book of the Dead, but I'm sure there's valid stuff in it, along with a lot of nonsense that was added later, just like the Scriptures of other religions.

Why am I a Christian instead of a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Muslim?

It's where I feel culturally most comfortable. It's how I was brought up. It's where my community is. It's where I formalize and express my encounters with The Infinite.

As I've said many times in this forum, religion is experiential, not intellectual, and what form the expression takes depends partly on your culture and partly on your temperament.

I was brought up as what is now called an ELCA Lutheran, and while I appreciate much of that heritage, the current expression of it is too suburban middlebrow nuclear family-oriented. I find the Episcopal Church much more in keeping with my urban highbrow single personality.

Not an answer to my question, but an admirable reply nonetheless. Your mind is open, and your heart seems kind.

My only problem with what you said is that you didn't answer the actual question I was going for: What is it, in scripture or otherwise, that moves you personally to believe in a single (maybe only somewhat but still) personified deity?

I had a religious experience when I was 21 years old (drug-free, frontal lobe epilepsy-free), and everything in my life since then has been different.

There are about twice as many ELCA Lutherans in this country as LCMS Lutherans. And the "Evangelical" in the name is really just an artifact of the Lutheran merger, and does not have the same slant that fundamentalist Christians would use it for.

I didn't ask for a list of mainstream churches. I asked how you determine who is mainstream. All those you listed (AKAIK) are older than the evangelical churches, but is that the metric? Age makes you mainstream?

Also--and I always point this out because it is so bizarre and frustrating--about a quarter of American Catholics report that they do believe the Bible is literally true, word for word, even though that is not what the Church teaches.

....either one in Genesis, you see that the flood was not just some random act of violence. Mankind wasn't forced to acknowledge God, much less be cool to each other. They were given rules, expectations, etc., just as any parent has for their children. They were also told what would happen if they didn't follow them. Given the choice, they chose to be shitheads. So how does that violate free will?

Since the OP doesn't believe in God, how can it be that s/he is trying to push responsibility onto God? How does the OP's culpability or absolution therefrom come into this at all?

It comes in the "If God, then" type of statements. It's putting forth the impression that God should clean up our messes, that we bear no responsibility to clean them up ourselves. It's partner is the belief that God should do these things without taking away our ability to make the mess in the first place.

If you ask questions about a set of beliefs, and then reject those beliefs when the questions are not answered to your satisfaction, that is a sign of immaturity?

Nope... let me try to make what I meant clearer.

Blind faith, just sucking up whatever, without thinking about it, is intellectual maturity.
Rejecting things out of hand, without thinking about it, is also intellectual maturity.

If you come to one or the other through growth in wisdom, research, questioning, etc, that's a mature intellect.

They were given rules, expectations, etc., just as any parent has for their children. They were also told what would happen if they didn't follow them.

Death is not a punishment, just as physical violence is not a punishment. It does nothing to nurture the growth of the child, and in the case of God and the people he supposedly wiped out in the flood, you're talking about INFINITE punishment for finite deeds. That's not parenting, that's fucking demented. And don't pull that old "who are we to judge God" canard on this, either. If God is real, and the story of the flood is real as you seem to believe, then God has violated the very basic rules that he himself supposedly laid down for the rest of us. "Do as I say and not as I do" is hardly parenting, nor is it remotely worthy of a supposedly supreme being.

Given the choice, they chose to be shitheads. So how does that violate free will?
As Loki said (I really do love that movie) "Do it and I'll fucking SPANK you" is hardly free will, especially when the "spanking" in question is eternal.

In post 96, you responded to this suggestion, which you quoted from the OP:

If there was a god she/he would have eradicated the sociopathic minions that claim his/her name.

This is an apt description of what God did in the Flood in Genesis. He punished the wicked not by forcing them to believe in Him or to be good to each other but by eradicating them.

The first thing you said in response to the OP's language was:

Yeah, screw that "free will" stuff.

I was merely asking you to elaborate on or defend that contention, i.e. that what the OP suggested would violate free will. But now you disavow it, and even seem puzzled by it.

Rejecting things out of hand, without thinking about it, is also intellectual maturity. (sic)

That's not what you said before. On at least two occasions, you have stated categorically that "atheism is the product of an immature intellect." Now you're backtracking and saying that, if careful consideration led you to atheism, it is not the product of an immature intellect.

If you come to one or the other through growth in wisdom, research, questioning, etc...

Elsewhere you claimed that fundamentalism and atheism are both signs of immaturity. Now (I'm assuming your "blind faith" is roughly equivalent to what you've referred to in the past as fundamentalism) you allow room for both to be the product of reasoned consideration. Earlier, you denied that I or any other atheist on this board could possibly exhibit intellectual maturity. Now you admit that, at least in principle, an atheist might have a mature intellect.

With that admission, I hope you have learned not to make broad-brush generalizations. I learned a long time ago (the hard way) not to broad-brush people. Perhaps this means you have learned the same.

I find it funny that you bash the OP for posting reactionary and emotional statements, while at the same time your post covers the exact same bases.

Aside from that...

Doubt and questions are a natural, and healthy, part of faith.
How do you figure? The Christian faith has one completely unforgivable sin, and that is denying the existence of the Holy Ghost. Since thoughts are deeds (check Jesus' statements on "adultery in your heart"), can doubting and questioning the Holy Spirit's existence land you in hell? It certainly seems like it. In order to doubt or question the Spirit's existence, you must first come from a POV of denial and skepticism.

Further, if doubt and questions are a healthy part of faith, why do so many Christians home-school and send their children to college at places like Bob Jones University? That insulation is born out of a fear that knowledge of the world in which we live will force their children to fall out of the faith.

And for good reason: believers and science don't mix sums it up nicely. Biology, biochemistry, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and the basic laws of energetics all point to the fact that the universe does NOT exist in even remotely the same state as claimed by the Christian bible. The physical world contradicts the existence of a Christian god. In fact, when you know enough about physics and energetics, you realize that the existence of any supernatural phenomenon, be it gods, ghosts, or zombies, is completely unsupported. At that point, belief in the supernatural can only continue if you ignore the evidence and cling to your own wishes. That's called cognitive dissonance, and while it can often be ignored by the sufferer, it gets uncomfortable when people start asking too many questions, and frankly, I think that explains your reactionary and emotional screeds here and elsewhere quite nicely.

So,

You're saying that in order to have faith, you need to accept everything as is, no questions? Wow, I guess Moses, Noah, David, Jacob, Isaiah, Habakkuk, Jonah, and even Jesus are all in Hell. They all had their moments of doubt and even, in some cases, disobedience, did they not?

Doubt and questioning one's faith is not equivalent to denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. That's quite a leap you make there.


Further, if doubt and questions are a healthy part of faith, why do so many Christians home-school and send their children to college at places like Bob Jones University? That insulation is born out of a fear that knowledge of the world in which we live will force their children to fall out of the faith.

Perhaps in some cases, yes, that's true, I don't deny that. I believe that creating that sort of "safe bubble" is counterproductive.

You said: "Biology, biochemistry, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and the basic laws of energetics all point to the fact that the universe does NOT exist in even remotely the same state as claimed by the Christian bible."

I see this often. The question I have is this, in order for, by your view, religion, scripture, and even the existence of God to be relevant in today's world, does our understanding of the natural world have to be the same as it was thousands of years ago?

That's a rather naive viewpoint, IMO.

Also, how does humanity's growing understanding of the world and, in fact, the universe contradict the existence of God? That, too, seems like somewhat of a leap.

In fact, when you know enough about physics and energetics, you realize that the existence of any supernatural phenomenon, be it gods, ghosts, or zombies, is completely unsupported. At that point, belief in the supernatural can only continue if you ignore the evidence and cling to your own wishes.

Yawn! This argument is getting rather old and stale. I am a believer, with a degree in theology. I am an r&d chemist, a graduate of the US Navy Nuclear Power program and have worked as a chemist for 16 years. I have 3 US Patents to my name, along with a number of internationally published scientific papers. I've presented my findings at two international conferences. So, quite honestly, try peddling this bogus argument elsewhere.

My existence alone disproves your argument.

That's called cognitive dissonance, and while it can often be ignored by the sufferer, it gets uncomfortable when people start asking too many questions, and frankly, I think that explains your reactionary and emotional screeds here and elsewhere quite nicely.

Reactionary and emotional? Now, remind us all, who called who arrogant, condescending, and an asshole?

You're saying that in order to have faith, you need to accept everything as is, no questions?
Is faith not "the evidence of things not seen?" Faith is the acceptance of that which has no evidence, so why would questions factor in to faith?

Doubt and questioning one's faith is not equivalent to denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. That's quite a leap you make there.
Call it a leap if you like, but I'm not the one who came up with it. My old pastor did. Call him wrong if you like, but at the time I think he had a point. Once you have "accepted the Holy Spirit," doubting that spirit is the same as denying that it exists, since it should have a daily presence and effect on your life.

I see this often. The question I have is this, in order for, by your view, religion, scripture, and even the existence of God to be relevant in today's world, does our understanding of the natural world have to be the same as it was thousands of years ago?

That's a rather naive viewpoint, IMO.

Also, how does humanity's growing understanding of the world and, in fact, the universe contradict the existence of God? That, too, seems like somewhat of a leap.

To put it simply, the greatest claim made for God is that he is the creator of the universe, and that claim is false in the eyes of all the evidence we've been able to find. Therefore, if God is not the creator, what else about him as reflected in the Bible is wrong? Since I have no evidence that any claim made about the God of the Bible is true, and I have significant evidence that claims made in Genesis are false, why should I believe any of it?

My existence alone disproves your argument.
HA! Your existence provides the example of cognitive dissonance that I talked about, and in no way invalidates my argument. However, your claims DO show why in the past I have referred to you as arrogant and condescending. That wasn't "emotional," that was "callin' 'em like I see 'em."

And if you really think that your post here WASN'T reactionary and emotional, then your cognitive dissonance is even more deep seated than I realized.

They use it to mean "unquestioning acceptance of statements."

When you say to a person, "I have faith in you," does that mean, "I'll believe everything you say." No, it means, "I trust you to do the right thing." We don't say that spouses are "unfaithful" when they lie to their partner. We say that they're unfaithful when they break their promise of exclusivity.

Same word. Different interpretations.