IS HELL FOR REAL

[Beej]

Wooh! Finally...

I hope everyone's holidays were outstanding. All the company has come and gone...no more relatives dropping by. You know what that means...time to take down the decorations and get back to business! Looks like I have some serious catching up to do, huh?



First thing's first...Marilyn Adamson:

As much as I'd like to think her article was geared toward school-aged children and Ms. Adamson purposefully simplified her ideas to appeal to their level of comprehension, something tells me these ARE her best answers. If that's the case, her understanding of even the most fundamental Earth processes is abysmal. I don't believe she could pass a high school biology or chemistry exam. The thought that there are adults walking the streets who consider such explanations rational -- or, worse, factual -- is more than a little disconcerting.



"...If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking."

I have serious doubts Ms. Adamson was ever actually an atheist. Her assertion is that every last one of us, I gather, are SO irrational that even when confronted with undeniable scientific evidence, we'll STILL dismiss the obvious just to be difficult. That's absurd...and somewhat offensive. Every "non-believer" I know views the God vs. Science conflict in the same manner as I: We recognize the difference between opinion and fact...we can debate opinions; we cannot debate facts. We place the utmost emphasis on scientific method and logic because they are the only objective means by which to discern truth...and we openly acknowledge such truths as any rational individual should. We do not, however, confuse or substitute our beliefs for those truths...as so many people of faith are prone to do.



Ms. Adamson then lists six arguments explaining why we should not question the existence of God. It will be easier to digest if I divide them into several posts.

"1. Billions of people ... believe that there is a Creator, a God to be worshipped. Now, the fact that so many people believe something certainly doesn't make it true. But when so many people through the ages are so personally convinced that God exists, can one say with absolute confidence that they are all mistaken?"

In logic, this is the fallacy known as argumentum ad populum, or an "Appeal to Popularity." Ms. Adamson is trying to convince the reader to give more consideration to her argument on the basis that "so many people through the ages" believe something to be true. Of course, one could easily turn the argument around and say: "Since 70% of the world's population disavow the teachings of Christianty and deny Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, can one say with absolute confidence that they are all mistaken?"

Neither argument is valid, however, because there's no inherent merit derived from the notion that many people share a belief. Many people have shared -- and continue to share -- false beliefs on a wide range of topics; their size in numbers does not make their false assertions any more accurate.


Continued...

[Beej]

Part II...

"2. The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today."

Ms. Adamson's capacity for understanding "complexities" appears suspect. Throughout her article, she seems to have great reservations about accepting scientific explanations -- based on sound evidence and duplicated numerous times in laboratory environments -- but shows no hesitation whatsoever at jumping to the conclusion that something as complex and abstract as a great, omnipotent, invisible "creator" suddenly made everything appear out of thin air. Selective skepticism?

She then lists a few examples of Earth's "complexities":

"The Earth...its size is perfect. ... If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life."

Ms. Adamson is in dire need of a science textbook.

First, the idea that planet size is the lone determining factor of atmospheric composition is flat out wrong. This planet's mass is significant in that its relative gravitational force acts to pull molecules of vital gases, water vapor, ash, dust, etc., toward Earth's core, but atmospheric composition and bounds are by no means constant. Components like water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O and SO2 are always fluctuating. Since gravity is an infinite force, it never actually reaches zero...only thins to a mathematically insignificant attraction. At certain altitudes, this thinning gravitational pull allows atoms of less mass to escape Earth's atmosphere. The same occurs throughout the universe with all celestial bodies which exert a gravitational force.

The truth is, Mercury does have an atmosphere, but it's not permament like Earth's. The Mariner 10 space probe detected the presence of hydrogen, helium and oxygen; additional Earth-based measurements have since identified particles of sodium, calcium and potassium, as well. Because of the planet's proximity to the sun, however, Mercury's under an unrelenting assault from solar winds that blast these atomic particles into space...which means its atmosphere is constantly being obliterated and replenished.

Far and away the most bizarre inference she draws in this passage, though, is that Earth's atmosphere was designed to support human life from the very beginning. That's COMPLETELY wrong!

The fossil record indicates that a multitude of plant and animal lifeforms inhabited this planet millions of years prior to any hominidae and thrived in a substantially different environment. The mixture of gases in this planet's atmosphere is not -- and has never been -- constant. Geologic study places Earth's age around 4-5 billion years. Earth's earliest atmosphere was hardly the life-sustaining blanket it is today because it consisted mainly of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. There was NO free oxygen in the atmosphere until about 2 billion years ago, when photosynthesizing bacteria evolved and began taking in carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen as a byproduct.

In other words, Earth's earliest atmosphere could've never supported human life. The idea that this planet was created or "designed" for us is simply untenable.



"The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. ... Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day."

Umm...no. Earth's orbit around the sun is elliptical...not circular...which means Earth's distance from the sun is variable, not constant. At its closest (January 3), Earth is 91.5 million miles from the sun; at its farthest (July 4), the planet is 94.5 million miles away. An annual variation of 3 million miles constitutes more than a "fractional variance" and, yet, life on Earth is quite possible year-round.

Now, I don't know what Ms. Adamson means by "properly warmed and cooled every day," but the tilt of Earth’s axis (23.5 degrees) does not change. That means the North Pole is aimed toward the sun for part of the year and away from the sun during another part of the year. This variation in the intensity and duration of sunlight determines the number of daylight hours received by points north and south of the equator at different times of the year. We call them seasons.

Furthermore, the variable components mentioned above -- water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O and SO2 -- all absorb heat emitted by Earth...warming the atmosphere in what scientists refer to as the “greenhouse effect.” Without these greenhouse gases, Earth's surface would be entirely too cold for life as we know it to exist...irrespective of axis angle or distance from the sun.



"And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet it restrains our massive oceans from spilling over across the continents."

Not quite. The moon's orbit around Earth is elliptical, as well...which means its distance from the planet also varies. The moon does not "create" tides. Tidal forces on Earth are the result of gravitational exertions from the moon, sun, sister planets and Earth, itself. Centrifugal forces acting in opposition to gravitational forces produce a tidal bulge on the side of Earth away from the moon. As the distances of the sun and moon change throughout the year, their respective forces on tidal activity on Earth are also altered.

The idea that the moon "restrains" ocean water from flooding the continents indicates Ms. Adamson is not familiar with plate tectonics. Whether due to atmospheric, tectonic or thermal variations, sea levels and coastal landscapes are constantly changing. Even a grade school textbook could explain continental shelves, continental slopes, trenches, deep ocean basins and variable sea levels in enough detail to satisfy Ms. Adamson's curiosity, yet she appears to believe there's an imaginary bubble drawn around every continent that keeps ocean waters at a safe distance from inland property. Hurricane, earthquake and tsunami victims know otherwise.


Continued...

[Beej]

Part III...

(Continuation of Argument 2)


"Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter."

Of all the absurd explanations Ms. Adamson proposes, this is easily my favorite. As with all her "evidence," she bases her conclusions on the premise that a "loving designer" created everything just perfectly to meet human (or other modern day lifeforms') needs. This very notion flies in the face of everything we know to be true about Earth's history...that lifeforms have evolved to adapt to changes in nature.

Simply put...water freezes from the top down on Mars, too. FYI...there aren't any fish on Mars.

As water freezes, adjacent water molecules are attracted to one another, forming hydrogen bonds. Because space is trapped between the molecules of these crystalline structures, solid water (ice) has a greater volume -- but less density -- than liquid water. Less density causes the ice to float, regardless of the temperature of the underlying water. In other words, if there's a planet 8 million light years from Earth where hydrogen and oxygen atoms bond to form water, and the temperature reaches 32-degrees F, the same will occur. No fish required.



"How does one explain the existence of the human brain? Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain."

As Ms. Adamson proves, not all brains function equally. Organisms of all different species have varying levels of cerebral capacity. We are by no means the only primates -- or even animals, for that matter -- who have shown the ability to process complex or abstract information and adapt to different scenarios. Chimps, crows and dolphins have all shown the ability to diagnose situations...sometimes forming their own tools in the process...to complete tasks.

There are plenty of times I can't find all my socks in the dryer, but a raven can deliberately bend a straight piece of wire into a hook to reach food in areas where its beak won't suffice. A chimp will search for a stick long enough to probe a termite mound and extract his meal.

Ms. Adamson's line of reasoning is that a "creator" designed humans to rule over the animal kingdom and, yet, it's the four-legged family pet -- the one which sits in the middle of the living room and licks itself in front of your company -- that has substantially greater senses of hearing and smell, as well as better peripheral and night vision. Superiority in the animal kingdom is relative to necessity and practicality. Certainly, humans have advanced brain functions and abilities that set us apart from our fellow animals, but what usefulness does the ability to compose an opera or recite Shakespeare serve if your only real concerns are survival and procreation?

Is her assertion that the modern human brain is reflective of early man? That no anatomical or cerebral evolution has occured in the past 2 million years? That they were constructing philosophical arguments on time travel or discussing tribal politics after a successful hunt? Again, the fossil record indicates otherwise; they could not have had anywhere near the cerebral capacity as modern man. They were creatures driven by primitive needs and limited by means, intellect and life span. We didn't go from *nothing* to Thomas Edison, John Locke and Albert Einstein in the blink of an eye; there had to be an evolutionary process built around imagination, curiosity, philosophy and innovation, that brought us to a level of understanding that we could envision and develop such complex ideas as household electricity, natural law and astrophysics.

If a creationist can admit evolution in such a limited sense, why not in the broader sense? If he can't accept it at all, what is his answer to all that we know to be true about developmental changes in plants, animals and, more importantly, humans?


Continued...

[Beej]

Part IV...


"3. Mere 'chance' is not an adequate explanation of creation."

Now, I know some people of faith try to redefine the word "chance" to attach a requirement of specificity that's nearly impossible to achieve, but let's consider the actual definition: "The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause."

Very simple..."unknown and unpredictable"..."no assignable cause."

That brings us back to my original point: There are explanations out there, but we don't recognize them or can't comprehend their role because of the limitations of current scientific understanding. I'm fine with the notion that there are just some answers the human brain can't grasp, yet. That does not, however, mean that we will never know or that we should manufacture incoherent and unsubstantiated explanations of supernatural deeds to soothe our curiosity in the meantime.

There's plenty evidence of "chance" in your everyday life; throughout the universe, it's infinite. Nature happens. To the extent that we're able to adapt to our changing environment, we'll continue to thrive. We can never forget, however, that nature controls us...not the other way around.

Since the beginning of life on Earth, species have become extinct only to be replaced by new ones. Did someone intervene to cause these events? No. Various organisms pre-date man's existence by billions of years. Over that span, there were multiple mass extinctions, ice ages, global thaws, continental shifts, atmospheric and temperature changes, asteroid collisions, volcanic eruptions and re-generations of new species able to adapt to an everchanging environment. Was there a grand design set in motion billions of years ago that will be responsible for a new species of insect born tomorrow? Of course not.

With the tragedy unfolding in Asia, some people of faith are all too quick to offer religious explanations for common occurences. Some Muslims have already gone on record as stating it was Allah's revenge against American Christians. The simple truth is tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes and far worse events were taking place on Earth billions of years before the existence of any human lifeform...and most definitely long before any set of religious tenets were ever recorded. There are simple explanations for all these things that have been proven and duplicated through scientific discovery.

Click HERE to understand the science of tsunamis.

There's a 1-in-45 chance (upgraded from 1-in-300 just one day earlier) the asteroid 2004 MN4 could strike Earth in April 2029. Larger than the rock that caused the meteor crater in Arizona or the one that exploded above Siberia in 1908, this one could potentially wipe out an entire region. Is it by grand design that these asteroids collided with Earth in the past or is it simply "chance" that objects hurtling through space in elliptical paths at thousands of miles per hour might run into one another periodically?



"Sir Hoyle illustrated the weakness of 'chance' with the following analogy. 'What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe!'"

It's a lousy analogy. Sir Hoyle discounts the evolution of flight and the study of aeronautics. In other words, man has been fascinated by flight for ages. Da Vinci proposed flying machines in the 15th century. The Montgolfier Brothers showed air travel was possible with their balloon in 1783. Otto Lilienthal advanced the understanding of air flow and lift with his gliders in the late 1800s. The Wright Brothers made powered flight a reality in 1903. Frank Whittle brought jet propulsion to the forefront with his W1 engine in 1941. The Concorde brought us the possibility of supersonic passenger flight in 1967.

We didn't go from nothing to a Boeing 747 in the blink of an eye. There were centuries of technological and mechanical evolution, experimentation, trial and error and scientific discovery that followed a methodical timeline of human progress. Of course, acknowledging this would mean Ms. Adamson would have to consider the parallel possibility that life on Earth could've evolved over BILLIONS of years, rather than magically appearing at the hand of an invisible creator.


Continued...

[Beej]

Part V...


"4. Humankind's inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained."

Humans aren't born with an "inherent sense" of anything. We need role models to teach us discipline and morality...and those values need to be reinforced as we mature. I learned my values from two nurturing, loving parents. The delinquent four doors up the street whose folks never gave a damn about him wasn't as fortunate. I'm a successful entrepreneur...he's serving time for identity theft and selling drugs.

By Ms. Adamson's conclusion, we should've turned out the same because each of us was born with an "inherent sense" of proper and unacceptable social behavior. That's foolish. No child is born to be good or bad; each of us is a product of our environment. The lessons and examples we learn at an early age stay with us our entire lives and shape the way we conduct ourselves throughout our adulthood.



"There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong."

Really? So, when an infant is taken from its mother immediately after birth and removed from an African village -- abandoned to die -- because it's cleft lip is "bad luck" for the tribe, you're okay with that? When a Nigerian woman is stoned to death for engaging in pre-marital sex, you wish you had a rock in your hand? Jewish Holocaust? Rwandan genocide? Slavery? Do these reflect your sense of right and wrong? Are these your values?

They most certainly aren't mine.



"5. God not only has revealed Himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life, but He has even more specifically shown Himself in the Bible. ... Archaeological findings continue to confirm rather than refute the accuracy of the Bible."

Not accurate. There's about as much archaeological support for the Bible as there is for Homer's Iliad or Margaret Mitchell's classic, Gone With The Wind. Yet, the first is viewed by about 30% of the world as an accurate historical record, while the latter two are almost universally recognized as works of fiction. While archaeology does support -- at the very most -- a general background for the Bible, it also contradicts many of the specific events described. Archaeology does not support anything regarding such monumental events as Creation, the Exodus, the Flood, the conquest of the Holy Land or the kingdoms of David and Solomon.

Take just one of these...

Something as significant as the Exodus does not appear anywhere in the Egyptian archaeological record. There are none of the traces of evidence one would expect to find if more than half a million people wandered around the Sinai for 40 years. Quite the contrary, archaeological evidence indicates that the Hebrews were native to Israel...they were there the whole time.

At the end of the day, people of other religions could make a similar claim of archaeological proof and be just as accurate as Christians...or inaccurate, depending on your perspective. Science does not support any specific religion more than another. Just the opposite, geology, biology, chemistry, archaeology, cosmology and other disciplines continue to shed light on Earth's mysteries with regularity...forcing theologians to shift the goal post of evidence pointing to a Creator each time.


Continued...

[Beej]

Part VI...


"6. Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God. ... What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles."

Now, this one is the toughest to refute...not because it's difficult, but because it requires more tact on my part to avoid offending people of Christian faith. Let me put the notion of the Bible as an accurate historical account in respectful (and board-appropriate) terms:

The Bible is like the Temptations mini-series.

Some parts are no doubt accurate depictions of real places and events; some parts are based on real places and events, but have been modified for any number of reasons; still, other parts are completely manufactured...the figment of man's imagination...to neatly tie up loose ends, emphasize particular points, make for a more interesting story or create a seamless depiction of tales which have been translated and edited multiple times through the ages,.

To take a handful of accurate depictions and assume the whole body of work is factual is problematic because one must then overlook the obvious inaccuracies and impossibilities science has since revealed in order to cling to any notion of absolute truth. It's compounded (and highly unproductive) when people of faith rely on these very same inaccurate or incomplete accounts to pass judgment on others.

Pick any religious text...the case is the same.

The phrase, "The Bible says..." at the beginning of any sentence indicates that what follows is an interpretation or the collective opinion of a particular group of people...not a universal truth.

That's a common roadblock to having meaningful, sensible discussions on religious topics. So many people of faith try to support their case by falling back on "...the Bible says..." or "...the Lord tells us...," not understanding that what they're really expressing are simply their beliefs. They are not facts...and they do not carry with them any inherent merit or verifiable evidence worthy of serious consideration. When forming arguments, too many people merge their beliefs or opinions with a handful of selective facts in an effort to present a more compelling case, but the results are always the same...the discussion gets lost.

In other words, DO NOT cite a "sacred text" -- be it the Bible, the Qur'an, the Veda, the Tripitaka, Torah, Lun Yu or whatever -- as your primary source of support for your argument. The Bible, itself, cannot be used to prove the Bible's accuracy. It's an invalid argument...akin to defining a word with the word.

If evidence truly exists to support Christian (or any faith's) beliefs, then it most certainly must exist external of the sacred text. Offer THAT evidence as proof, instead...because the beliefs expressed in the Bible or any other religious text do not substitute for concrete evidence. Regardless of which faith one subscribes to, every single one of them is a minority viewpoint...meaning more people in the world believe something else than share those particular beliefs.

In other words, claiming moral superiority or speaking in such definitive terms about ANY religion doesn't seem to be the best path toward unity or peace when -- at any given time -- at least 70% of the world's population thinks your views are wrong. That's a recipe for conflict.



One last word from Ms. Adamson...

"Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way."

I've more than countered Ms. Adamson's "evidence" and provided a fact-based refutation of "creationism," but we can reach agreement on this edited version of her comment:

"If you believe a loving God exists, you can know Him in an intimate, personal way."


Faith is a matter of choice and I have no personal inclination to arbitrarily challenge one's beliefs...so long as we all acknowledge they are just beliefs. As soon as we start throwing around words like "truth" and "fact" to refer to those beliefs, the burden of proof then falls squarely on the shoulders of the person making the claim to produce evidence...external of the Bible, itself.



Hey...

Thanks Nate, curet and everyone else for taking part in this discussion. As long as we keep it civil and on point (and there's no reason to believe we wouldn't) this could be an interesting thread for people unsure of their beliefs to hear and consider differing views.

I guess I'm the token atheist.

[keres]

Great posts, Beej! :wtg

[jusme]

I find it hard to believe when someone says that they don't believe in God, just for the simple fact that I, myself, find it impossible to deny His existence. Everyday of my life, I go through hell, more than some, but less than many. If I didn't know He was always there, I'd find absolutely no point in living. I know for a fact that I'd just lay down and die, because many times I have wanted to. I believe that without God, there is no purpose, and without purpose, there's no point to life. I've gone through too much in my life and I've seen far too many things not to believe that everyday I wake up, it is because of him. Life is a gift from God, by far the greatest gift. For me, He's more real than I am, and I find comfort in knowing that I am never alone. There have been several times in my life in which I have felt completely alone, but just knowing I can talk to Him and He hears me, makes the world of difference. Even in my 17 years, I've done a lot of stuff, and yet He continues to have mercy on me. He does things for me that I know I'm not worthy of. And I'm not saying there hasn't been times when I've wondered if He's really there or if He actually hears me, but each time, He's let me know that He does. I think scientists can say whatever, and try to prove whatever, but I know what I know. A man is entitled to believe what he chooses to believe. Whatever floats your boat. I believe in God, heaven and hell and I believe that Satan exists. And I also believe that God created the universe. But I've also known many people who don't believe in God, but at the first sign of trouble, guess who they call out to...

[jusme]

And I also find it absolutely ridiculous (and also a bit humorous) when I sit in science class and hear about how supposedly 7 billion human beings, or however many people there are on this cesspool called Earth, all evolved from some microscopic bacteria. But again, whatever floats your boat.

[Beej]

Hello, jusme...

My intent was never to prove God doesn't exist. To be perfectly honest, it's an impossible feat that I wouldn't even attempt. All I did was call attention to inaccurate information offered as "evidence" by an author Nate cited to support his position. If you consider the information in its proper context, it shouldn't have any affect on your faith whatsoever. God's a very real part of your life...and nothing can take that away.

We all come from different walks of life -- and have a wide array of personal experiences -- but we do share a common thread. Namely, at some point each of us was your age and more than likely went through times when we felt like life was just giving us too much to handle. Nothing seemed to make sense. We felt alone and just couldn't see any light at the end of the tunnel.

My parents did everything RIGHT...and, yet, I still had a time in my early 20s where I was ready to give up. I went through bouts of depression and suffered horribly from anxiety attacks. I stopped going out...wouldn't leave the house for months at a time. I'd make excuses to my friends and relatives to avoid seeing them. Even the thought of going out would send me into a panic. Sometimes it took everything I had just to get out of bed. Nothing mattered. I didn't care whether I lived or died...and there didn't seem to be any end in sight for what I was feeling. I didn't ask for help because I thought everyone would just think I was nuts. My family definitely noticed I wasn't the same and reached out to help, but I got to be pretty good at making excuses and hiding what was really going on. So, I suffered alone...for years.

It wasn't until my niece came along that I was again able to experience something much more powerful than the misery I was feeling inside. She made all the negativity I was harboring seem so trivial and useless. Seeing the joy and wonderment in her eyes that came from every new experience, I began to appreciate the little things in life again and focus on the GOOD that was happening all around me. She gave my life purpose. She gave me something to look forward to...a reason to see tomorrow...and the next day...and so on. It didn't happen over night, of course, but I started to get back to the person I was...the one who loved life, kept everyone laughing and never backed down from a challenge.

I started drawing and writing music again, but more importantly, I learned to express what I was feeling through creativity. See, the negative thoughts need an outlet; we can't keep them locked inside because they'll just eat away at us.

I've seen both sides and there's no way I'll ever allow the negativity to take hold of me again. It's a destructive force that hurts not only you, but everyone who cares about you. That's what really capped it off for me...I couldn't stand to see what I was doing to the people around me anymore. They didn't deserve the hurt and torment I was putting them through.

I finally got to the point where I said, "ENOUGH! I'm not going to live my life like a prisoner anymore!" I have too much to live for...too many people who need me...too many people who care about me...and, most importantly, too many people who would be devastated if I selfishly gave up.

I've never looked back.

It's only been in recent years that I've been comfortable talking about that time with my family. Only then did I learn my dad had gone through something very similar after his mother passed away. She died on my second birthday, so I would've never known. He's always been the stabilizing force of our family, so it was quite stunning to learn that someone I've always looked to for strength had experienced the same things. What made it worse for him, though, was that he had a wife and two children to support....bills to pay...household responsibilities, etc. That made him even greater in my eyes.

He turned to the Bible for guidance. That wasn't my path. Your path may be something completely different, but you WILL find it. We're proof that there is light at the end of the tunnel...and a reason to look forward to tomorrow...no matter how bad things might seem now. It took me the better part of a decade to do it on my own; those are years I can never get back, but the lessons I learned will stay with me forever. I'm stronger and wiser than I would've been had life unfolded so easily.

You're already light-years ahead of me because you're able to express your feelings now. That's a great sign. If your faith in God brings you solace and strength, then follow that path. You'll never know where it leads if you give up on your journey.

There are better times ahead...trust me on this. If you take nothing else away from my words, at least understand that you're not alone. You're NEVER alone. You not only have God and the people who love you on your side, but also the knowledge that others have been through similar battles and came out stronger than before.

All my best. ~B

[Jammo]

Yep, this whole god-heaven-jesus -thing is (just like) a fairy tale.

"Believe in God and you'll get to heaven and live happily forever. The ones you loved and have passed away will be there waiting for you"
It gives comfort in times of sorrow.

But still, I myself have had enough of this little story.

[tabby]

(((Jammo))) I am not a religious person either, but I believe that there is a God who created the universe. I just believe it; don't need or want any proof of it. I don't see why faith should be subject to scientific dissection ... we have plenty of that stuff around.
And I honestly don't understand why he most faithful people feel an urge to proove to others that they are right. If you try to "know for sure" you don't honestly "believe."

[Beej]

Hey there, AnnaK...

"And I honestly don't understand why [t]he most faithful people feel an urge to proove to others that they are right. If you try to 'know for sure' you don't honestly 'believe.'"

Agreed. I think most of us are content to do our own thing, but still be respectful toward others whose beliefs may differ. I certainly don't feel any urge to convert the world to atheism. The idea you stated earlier -- if you truly believe in God, you don't need evidence; if you need evidence, then you don't truly believe -- makes perfect sense from a philosophical standpoint.

I'm not sure why we can't just leave it at that.

People of faith will not find validation for their beliefs or proof of God through science. Attempts to do so will always fall short...and leave the door open for people less kind than I to criticize and demean those beliefs. That's unfortunate.

Faith comes from within. If you believe in God, He's very real. There's no need to convince others.

[Ivory Fair]

If you believe in God, He's very real.

Ah but God is very real whether we believe him or not. We can close the blinds and deny the sun, but that doesn't make it go away.

There's no need to convince others.

But there IS a need. That's a part of believing. (Matthew 28: 19-20)

[Ivory Fair]

I don't know that I agree with the notion of blind faith (if that's what we're saying.) Romans 10:17 says that we have faith when we study the Word and is subsequently not an uninformed manifestation. I believe the Bible for many reasons, not the least of which are........

1. "scientific" facts that are mentioned long before they were "proven" to be true

2. books written by authors, independant of each other and living centuries apart, correlate with one another

3. outside, non-Biblical "historical" correlation of Christ's existance (I'm confused as to what "scientific proof" Keres is looking for?)

I can expound upon these things if anyone likes but as "God helps those who helps themselves," I have to go to work now and don't have time at the moment.