A Tripolation

Then you should go have that person go to hospitals and cure all the people of their terminable illnesses. If I were God, I would have dealt with the loneliness and spared billions of people a life of agony and suffering on this Earth. Or I would have at least created a perfect world. Not this one plagued with evil.

...one person is not considered an affirmation by scientific standards. You would have to replicate this, many times, under a controlled, monitored environment. Wouldn't be as much fun, eh? Well, those centuries where we didn't have antibiotics, a lot of people died horrible, slow deaths because of a lack of proper medicine. But so long as we get the joy of discovering remedies, I can see how God would justify the suffering of countless people. People are not healed through prayer. It is indeed why hospitals do not employ faith healers. Because it's all nonsense. While I agree with most of what you say, I think you take it too far. Theism has been around in some form or another for thousands of years. The world has continued to develop.

.....what? He only says this because he's a terrible engineer. Like when ugly people say beauty is only skin deep.

...really? Telepathy? And you criticize the Judeo-Christian God? I would hope someone would hospitialize me if I convinced myself that telepathy existed. Your own senses were lying to you. There has been no documented event of telepathy, nor is telepathy reproducible in a controlled, monitored environment. But if you think you are different, there's a million dollars in it for you if you can prove it. "Hounding" you on your beliefs is not shoving anything down your throat. It is part of intellectual discourse. Like when you criticize the Bible and/or God. I defend them to the best of my ability, using logic and the little theology I know. I do not consider it you trying to shove your beliefs down my throat. It's simply you asking questions to vagaries and weak chinks in the Christian ideology. So, no. I'm not shoving anything down your throat. I'm not telling you you're a blasphemous heathen that will burn in Hell if you do not repent of your evil ways. I'm simply holding you to the same standards you hold everyone else in the religion forum. If you can't take challenges to your own faith, then why do you challenge others? Why hold such a blatant double-standard? Yes. You used a blanket statement regarding all theists. This what I was responding to. Surely you know some theists who are intellectually honest about their religion? You specified just the fundies, and then you specified believers in general. Apologies if you only meant to address the literalists and such. Ah. Yes. Explain that. I assert that my belief is the truth. To me, anyways. Why does that bother you?

I don't see how this bothers you. I think having a diverse field of beliefs and convictions improves this forum as a whole, so long as the members are polite and do not try to shove beliefs down one anothers' throats. I find this to be grossly inaccurate. Myself and many other theists acknowledge our deity to be highly illogical, and completely incompatible with a being that could exist in this reality. As someone studying physics, I can quite clearly see the interaction between science and religion. There isn't one. There is nothing that we observe that couldn't be the result of natural, cumulative processes. And for the phenomena we observe that we haven't found a mechanism for, that doesn't necessitate God. God would only add complexity. How is this thought process dishonest in any way? I know many people who believe like this.

I just know that they will sign an accords, based on my interpretation of Revelation. It does not mention the format. And seeing as how the Antichrist will come forth and deceive the nations, I think almost every political and legislative body will be in full support of everything he does.

There is no evidence for a cosmic consciousness. It is also highly unlikely that any cosmic conscious exists, as you have admitted by saying you have no proof. My question to you is what makes you think that your Godhead is any more logical than the Judeo-Christian God? Because it isn't. In an attempt to show you that you are just as much an illogical person as the people in the "Abrahamic Cults".

That certainly was true with me and a lot of my friends. We had the utmost respect for our parents and didn't want to disappoint them. So what's your point?

Aaaaand that's where I stopped reading.

You repeatedly say you believe in some God. Now you say it's nature. You are aware that nature is an abstract concept that is not sentient in any way, correct?

No. There's a good deal of evidence that suggests that a man named Jesus, and that he was a roaming prophet/magician. How many times do I have to tell you that any belief in a supreme deity is illogical. Your god(s) is(aren't) any better. You are just as illogical and you believe in just as much fantasy.

Do you have any proof for this bold statement? I certainly know that this didn't apply to me. Ergo, me not drinking/smoking/participating in illicit activities as a teen.

It's all subjective. I think it's a good foundation because it's pretty much all we've got. And there does seem to be some historicity to Jesus. You obviously don't see it as a good foundation. Which begs the question... Why are you wasting your time only participating in the religion forum of this board if you see it all as speculative nonsense? Do you seek to elevate yourself by calling modern religions "fairy tales" and "cults"?

We were told that the various holy texts are the Words of their respective Gods. This is what discussions are based upon. So, if you consider that a weak foundation, then yes, all discussions are speculative nonsense.

Yes, but I never got that shipment of Slinkys in. It was obviously a clause-1506 error. Really, what the HELL are you trying to say?

...people have free time in the summer?

Again, this is what I agree with. Children have such a large capacity to learn new ideas. If we introduced the more abstract side of math when they were younger, instead of mindless computation, then I think these students would excel in the higher level courses.

This is what I agree with. And not just elementary schools. In high school as well. I took Calculus as a junior, and excelled. But it was only because it was what I see now as "algorithm execution". I didn't understand WHY my math was working, as I do now. I was just good at taking a series of steps, and manipulating them to find an answer. There was always an answer. I feel that this has hindered my ability to understand more advanced maths, as I have trouble with some very basic abstract concepts. Intermediate vector analysis only makes sense if I think about it VERY carefully. I don't believe this is normal, and I attribute it to being taught to value my skill at carrying out a series of repetitive, meaningless steps.

I'd like to know how adding an entity that could "start" such a process makes it less complicated in any way, shape, or form.

Peter wasn't denying his divinity. He was denying that he ever followed Christ at all. Again, Doubting Thomas didn't disbelieve Christ's divinity. He didn't believe the others had seen Christ resurrected. In texts that are not part of the Catholic canon, there are at least three different resurrection stories, so I don't blame him. Edit: And I see Cap has already addressed these misinterpretations. My apologies for posting duplicate thoughts. Knowing what the Romans were capable of, it's not hard to believe that Peter denied Christ at first. Christ even foretold he would.

Your issue isn't complex. Don't act like you've stumbled upon some new theological issue. You haven't. Yours is just a rehash of the same old "Why would God create people he knew were going to end up in Hell?" As near as I understand the Christian sect that believes this, it's not God threatening anyone. He's not saying, "Choose me or die." He's saying, "Choose me, because you're already dead." No. He told them that there would be consequences. They valued their judgement over God's. He did nothing He did not warn was going to happen. They even knew afterwards they did something bad, because they tried to hide. Advertising does interfere with free will. It's trying to persuade you to do one thing over the other. Therefore, the choice is no longer wholly yours, as you can't control the subtle thoughts that now accompany your decisions, based on this marketing. And you're welcome. You're right. And ever since we were tasked with accepting Jesus as a personal savior, God has never revealed himself to man. Instead, Christians were tasked with spreading the word of God. I always assumed because he himself could no longer do it. Or did I miss the part where a god-like entity revealed himself to humanity in the past 2000 years?

God can't directly market, because that would interfere with free will. It answers everything.

Can you do algebra? Basic Trig? What do you mean by beginner?

True, if you count using shortcuts through space. But if you're talking about an object with mass accelerating past the speed of light, then I wouldn't count on it.

My talents lie more in the literary planes. However, I am studying physics because I like it more. I struggle with the abstract stuff (the more advanced mathematics) a great deal. As long as you are committed to your studying, and you master a topic before you move onto the next, you should be fine. What current level of mathematics are you capable of?