Villain

It's perfectly normal to make mistakes and I realised that is what happened, but the 'atheist preaching' does not stem from that. Perhaps you might afford me some concentration just this once though. If God does not exist, then as many have correctly pointed out, there is no pre-determined meaning to life. It is what it is. The only meaning is a personal meaning, there is no meaning in science, there is no meaning in reality, there is no meaning in anything, only meaning in what we decide. Now from that point we move to the meaning that the individual gives their life by believing in God and an implied universal meaning. The individual finds meaning in a creator which implies that the individual was created and perhaps even created for a purpose. You, on the other hand, are saying that such a meaning cannot be and furthermore are not replacing that lack of meaning with anything, but rather destroying meaning and leaving them desolate. In that sense you are preaching against individual meaning, which is the only truth that can ever exist without belief. Hopefully you will come to understand this and leave others to have what we all ultimately want, whether it is real or not. Unfortunately you have given your life meaning by believing that you are living as per an universal meaning, by spreading the 'truth' to others, much like an atheistic disciple. Your choice for meaning in life is to destroy the meaning of others.

Do you even bother reading people's posts before you start with your atheistic preaching (I apologise to all the other atheist but that is the only term that can be used to describe this guy)?

To Appolinaria I would suggest that you consider reading some Existential philosophy works. I think Nausea by Sartre might be something that you could relate to. It's a fictional book based around a character trying to make sense of life and what it is to be living. This might also serve as a good, albeit intensive, introduction: Existentialism is a Humanism WARNING:I wouldn't consider either as a light read. They might also confront you with more problems than answers , but if you are really looking for answers then that is a risk you will have to take. I think 'ignorance is bliss' is perhaps a luxury that not all are afforded .

So.....dopamine then.

I think you will find that the religious are more than willing to talk about the reality of life and I'm not talking about the American idea of reality but the real world reality. Perhaps you are capable of understanding what Christ was talking about in Mark 2:17. I wouldn't bother with the nonsense that the majority on this forum have to say about religion, it is quite obvious that they have little understanding of it.

Inadequate to who and by what criteria will you be judging the evidence?

The topic clearly reads 'People who believe in god are broken' and I have disagreed with it. I don't know why someone would ask me to give reasons why I believe in God as that would most certainly be off topic. Perhaps you are referring to post #930 quoted below: I have given more than enough reason as to why people who believe in god are not broken. I have also demonstrated how people who refuse that a god could exist, could never see evidence of an existing god, hence why someone who is not interested in truth will never find truth, but merely find what they want. By naming the thread the they you did, you have demonstrated that you are not interested in finding the truth of the matter but only your truth or perhaps I should call it, we truth, as even though numerous people have made many valid points against your original premise, you still maintain it's rather lacking validity.

I cannot prove God to you, belief is not something that can actively be attached to someone else, it is a choice, that is my understanding of 'ask and it shall be given, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened.' This also ties up into the original sin or perhaps all and every sin from a biblical stand point. I don't want to break the forums rules about preaching and therefore will not elaborate further. I can't make judgement on why people do or don't believe, I have found reason to and so have others but there are many who have not. Ultimately I am not responsible for others choices and no one other than myself is responsible for mine. I don't think that I have used broken reasoning to come to my position, I can say that I have not used the scientific method as it would not be of much use in this regard. In what way would I be able to conclude that they were broken people?

My point is that YOUR position or MY position or anyone else's position is irrelevant. I think you understood what I meant but Tar's post that follows made me feel like I should clarify. Yes and since we are dealing with an entity that is either non-existent or pre-existent (let's say in relation to humans to avoid a further debate and since my point is going to centre on this), there are complications with evidence. No matter what sort of evidence is produced it still needs to be interpreted to be evidence of said god. If the sun for example was already the sun before we called it such then we would still have to make the choice that the characteristics described were describing the sun. The individual will therefore have to decide if the sun is the sun or if the sun is something other than the sun. My opinion is that there is evidence of God and that someone who were to look for God would find that it is substantial enough to believe in God. As I have pointed out a little earlier that my opinion is of little relevance to anyone else's in regards to evidence and if you or anyone else thinks that there is no relevant evidence then so be it. But considering that a god could exist and that there could be evidence of a god, it stands to reason that people who believe in god are not broken. You might have a case if people believed in something which absolutely could not exist.

I'm not interested in being crowned the champion, those that are interested in the claim that I have made may go and review the thread and decide for themselves, I see no point in repeating myself. I would not ask someone to repeat what they have already written and I don't expect to treated any differently. Ok, so to recap a god could exist and evidence of a god could exist, but yet people who believe they have found evidence and believe that a god does exist are broken because you don't know of such evidence. Am I mistaken? Please don't take this the wrong way but I can't be bothered about your position, you really are not of any importance to me. I have not been tailoring my responses to you, I do not feel the need to convince you of anything. The individual is responsible for himself and if you are interested in finding the truth I suggest that you look in every possible place, truth is a very rare quality and is not likely to come looking for you. You might not wake up every day and say god cannot exist but that does not mean that you are open to discovering a god that does exist and from that perspective the two are one and the same.

If that is what you understood from what I wrote, then who am I to judge you if you wish to deceive yourself? But let it be know that you deceive yourself. We are in the end all responsible to ourselves for our own opinions.

Exactly, to the individual who decides that god doesn't exist, there cannot be evidence even if he does objectively exist because evidence will never be of his existence, only of something that is not him.

And how might god exist if god doesn't exist?

Atheism is an active refusal that god exists, it is a choice from the concious mind. Nothing can be discovered that is not already there and nothing new can be made by man. There is no true intelligence in man, a simple truth that is beyond man's conscious mind and is enough proof that One higher than man exists. The evidence is not a physical evidence but an evidence of knowledge. An evidence so simple but yet so illuminating, accessible to all who are wise enough is listen.

I have given more than enough reason as to why people who believe in god are not broken. I have also demonstrated how people who refuse that a god could exist, could never see evidence of an existing god, hence why someone who is not interested in truth will never find truth, but merely find what they want. By naming the thread the they you did, you have demonstrated that you are not interested in finding the truth of the matter but only your truth or perhaps I should call it, we truth, as even though numerous people have made many valid points against your original premise, you still maintain it's rather lacking validity.

Do you think your audience are children? They are more than welcome to read what I have already written and explained in this thread. I see no need to repeat myself. Your cheap psychological tricks are not needed here, why don't you remove your condescending tone and act like an adult.

No one can prove the all knowing wrong, that is why I stopped contributing to this thread.

If you were interested in coming to a clear consensus on whether religious people were broken or not you wouldn't have named the topic as you did. There is no "gotcha" being used, it is quite clear to anyone that 'we' are biased in this discussion and that the truth of the matter is of little importance, but what is important is driving the thread in the direction that 'we' wants it to go. Anyone who is not part of the Dog squad can clearly see what I have stated.

You have relied on faith for your very title of the topic 'people who believe in god are broken'. You start the thread by asserting something without giving reason as to why you can make such an assertion which means it is a faith based claim.

Claiming that people who believe in god are broken when broken has no meaning is a rather useless. The title of this thread is the only witness needed as ascertain the propaganda that was to follow. Seems 'we' have now gotten to the stage where burden of proof is on non-believers of said propaganda to prove why the starting point 'people who believe in god are broken' is not a given. It seems rather hypocritical to condemn faith but then rely on it to prove your point.

Perhaps you are taking the title too literally

You seem to think that we are born with moral values or that there are definite moral rights and wrongs. On what basis do you have the right to decide what is moral for the human species? I have also stated that the passage is open to interpretation because of the ancient language and culture of the time. We do not know the exact meaning of words in those days. Think of the difference between Shakespearian English and our English today. It is still the same language but many words have totally different meanings. I'm not going to flood this site with biblical explanations so do a search if you want a further explanation. Thank you. a very beautiful analogy.

If you're interested, read the text and read some opposing views and come to your own conclusion. If not, just carry on with making a noise, it's much easier than doing something constructive.

1. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask. Firstly as you have originally pointed out, the sacrifice was not asked for by God, so I don't see how it correlates to my original statement: "Also considering that God has sacrificed Himself for man but does not ask the same of man...". Secondly there are different translations/interpretations of the passage that you have quoted, one being that he killed her as a sacrifice, the other being that she was given to the service of the Lord and remained a virgin. 2. Yes He uses the parable of the servant/slave. Now go and read John 15:15. Yes I notice the second half and the division of households is quite apparent today. Religion is no longer a cultural system and many families are split on religious views as per His word. 3. This is in relation to your father-daughter reference earlier. Your daughter might be child, but you are not. There is a big difference between a father-daughter(child) relationship and a father-daughter(adult) relationship.

I have already referred to a verse by Christ earlier that denotes that kind of behaviour. Why don't you show where Christ said what you are asserting and then you might have something valid. Matthew 7:6 comes to my mind at this stage in time.