Singapore youths shun religion

[Agoraphobic]

No, I do not have faith. Let me clarify this - I do not have faith in the Christian sense. I do not believe that Jesus Christ was conceived from a virgin mother, that he died and rose from the dead. I however have reason to believe that a person by that name may have lived during that time, and was tried and persecuted by the religious leaders of that Jewish community for heresy. That person was a rebel, a non-conformist. Whose teachings, threatened the security of the ruling elite then, and hence he was sentenced to death. His death made a martyr out of him, and anti-Roman sentiment focused on his personality and a cult movement formed and gathered momentum with increasing resistance against Roman rule spreading and growing over the known world then. To deal with this "radical" movement, Emperor Constantine decided to adopt Christianity as the official religion of Rome. He called on the leaders of the various churches that had formed, sat them down at some meetings to decide what is to be official and what is to be heretic. And there you have it - the Holy Roman Catholic Church was formed. Lasting till today, it is the world's best managed organization. And has shaped and influenced the world to be what it is now. Along the way, it has made enemies, and now has grown so large, and established, that it is impossible to dismantle. It is a dinosaur! Still alive, but ancient as hell! People pledge alliance to it, even though it doesn't know these peoples individually. And although it is the "original" church, it has grown many offshoots, some of which are large organizations too. I think at the individual person's level.,, religion does occupy a space in their lives, Something they need. Just part of being human I suppose. To me, the formation of this large organization is intermingled with political motives and other social issues and is more man-made than "divine." What this divinity is, I accept that I will never know, not during my life on earth. But certainly, believing in some fairy tales is not for me.

Cheers!

The thing is, you have faith too. Beliefs and faith are part and parcel of our makeup as humans. The difference is in the object of faith. You asked why there should be an ultimate force (I call is CAUSE) in the universe. Well, logic demands it! You assumed again, without evidence, that in the past humans imagined God into existence. This is your way to explain the existence of God, though it is shot full of holes, not least there is no shred of evidence given in support of it. But logic demands that every effect has a cause. The universe as a whole is an effect. The universe is a contingent entity, it need not exist…but it does. An effect demands a cause, that’s simple logic. Therefore God is the uncaused Cause that caused the universe to exist at a point in time. Thus the universe and time have a simultaneous beginning. The ancient Greeks talk about the atom, but no eye has seen it. Bet you didn’t know that the Bible says that the visible things are made of things invisible or unseen (Hebrews). This can be an apt reference to atoms too since it is consistent with what we know in science. As to astronomy, the things that have been made have always been there, even if we cannot see them with the naked eye. The universe is made for discovery, that’s a thought you should reflect over deeply. Only humans can embark on such a discovery, nothing else in the world can do that, not even our so-called nearest cousin Charlie Ape! Did you know that with each discovery all the more we have to acknowledge the hand of God? Before we could peek into the cell, people thought it was simple cell. Now we know its anything but simple! The God of the gaps argument, so favoured by atheists, is a dead and impotent argument. Whatever knowledge we have…all points to God. Long time atheist Sir Anthony Flew promoted and defended atheism for almost his entire life, but became a theist (not a Christian though) by the overwhelming evidence from the life sciences. To him, God is the only plausible explanation for the DNA.

 

[Frodo]

No, I do not have faith. Let me clarify this - I do not have faith in the Christian sense. I do not believe that Jesus Christ was conceived from a virgin mother, that he died and rose from the dead. I however have reason to believe that a person by that name may have lived during that time, and was tried and persecuted by the religious leaders of that Jewish community for heresy. That person was a rebel, a non-conformist. Whose teachings, threatened the security of the ruling elite then, and hence he was sentenced to death. His death made a martyr out of him, and anti-Roman sentiment focused on his personality and a cult movement formed and gathered momentum with increasing resistance against Roman rule spreading and growing over the known world then. To deal with this "radical" movement, Emperor Constantine decided to adopt Christianity as the official religion of Rome. He called on the leaders of the various churches that had formed, sat them down at some meetings to decide what is to be official and what is to be heretic. And there you have it - the Holy Roman Catholic Church was formed. Lasting till today, it is the world's best managed organization. And has shaped and influenced the world to be what it is now. Along the way, it has made enemies, and now has grown so large, and established, that it is impossible to dismantle. It is a dinosaur! Still alive, but ancient as hell! People pledge alliance to it, even though it doesn't know these peoples individually. And although it is the "original" church, it has grown many offshoots, some of which are large organizations too. I think at the individual person's level.,, religion does occupy a space in their lives, Something they need. Just part of being human I suppose. To me, the formation of this large organization is intermingled with political motives and other social issues and is more man-made than "divine." What this divinity is, I accept that I will never know, not during my life on earth. But certainly, believing in some fairy tales is not for me.

Cheers!

When I said you have faith, I am not saying you have faith in God, or are a believer, like I am. I mean that you are exercising faith, as in trusting or placing confidence in something/someone without having full certainty or complete knowledge. For example, you have faith when you accept what you read in, say, National Geographic, or maybe in one of those popular books by the new atheists. Or you have faith whenever you take the bus or taxi to work. Or even when you sit on the chair. It is that confidence and trust that you place on something or someone, not necessarily in the absence of evidence, but based on certain knowledge or reasoning. I can understand your knee jerk reaction to this claim I make. Most atheists would cringe in horror at being told that they have faith. They think faith means religion. Not necessarily so. As an atheist you would ultimately put faith in Reason.

Concerning your views about Jesus. It is no doubt a view you hold to by faith. Faith in what liberal scholars or what skeptic books/websites have informed you. You probably won’t accept it if I tell you your views are wrong! LOL! Why? Because of your faith in them. In my view, your claim that Constantine simply decided to adopt Christianity out of a “cannot beat them then join them” policy is highly absurd. Rome is no coward and has no qualms using its might to eradicate the sect of Christianity. It’s at most a CSB (cool story bro) but it simply carries no weight. Please check this out http://www.christianhistoryproject.org/to-the-constantine-era/constantine/

The Christianity you mentioned, is more of the INSTITUTIONAL church which you see it is various expressions, of which I am sure you have much to rail against. I have my fair share of grouses against the institutionalism of the church but that should not concern us now. Suffice to say that whatever your criticisms against the expressions of the church today, you should deal with the actual teachings reflected in the Bible. But then again, if you have no interest to know what the Bible says, you can’t go far.

Believing in fairy tales is not for me too. You can call the Bible fairy tales if it makes it easier for you to dismiss it. But apart from crediting it to God, I can see that you have great difficulties defending your own worldview or belief system.

 

[Agoraphobic]

So, which church do your attach yourself to? From your arguments, may I guess, do you associate with the Gnostic Church? Or since you hang on to the bible as the ultimate, are you from one of the main (early) protestant churches? Lutheran? Baptist? One cannot be faulted for seeing Christianity from the angle of the Roman Catholic Church. Most of the biblical stories (and those of Christ himself) are portrayed from Roman Catholic perspective. The Vatican's Pope, who happens to be the elected head of the church represents the voice of Christians all over the world. The current Pope is seen as a wise and good man with virtues esteemed and admired by peoples all over the world, not just catholics, but almost everyone. He is accepted as heaven's emissary here on earth, to delegate God's works and wishes. And politicians do take heed of what he says. He is definitely influential, and punches above his own weight (not physically, but from a divine vantage). The only nation which doesnt' give a shit about him would be PRC, because they've appointed their own archbishop, and wroter their own rules for Catholicism within the bamboo curtain.

BTW, you can stop calling me atheist. I did not say there is no God. I just claim that I do not know the answers to all these questions our species have been asking for millennium, and that we are still discovering as we go along.

Cheers!

When I said you have faith, I am not saying you have faith in God, or are a believer, like I am. I mean that you are exercising faith, as in trusting or placing confidence in something/someone without having full certainty or complete knowledge. For example, you have faith when you accept what you read in, say, National Geographic, or maybe in one of those popular books by the new atheists. Or you have faith whenever you take the bus or taxi to work. Or even when you sit on the chair. It is that confidence and trust that you place on something or someone, not necessarily in the absence of evidence, but based on certain knowledge or reasoning. I can understand your knee jerk reaction to this claim I make. Most atheists would cringe in horror at being told that they have faith. They think faith means religion. Not necessarily so. As an atheist you would ultimately put faith in Reason.

Concerning your views about Jesus. It is no doubt a view you hold to by faith. Faith in what liberal scholars or what skeptic books/websites have informed you. You probably won’t accept it if I tell you your views are wrong! LOL! Why? Because of your faith in them. In my view, your claim that Constantine simply decided to adopt Christianity out of a “cannot beat them then join them” policy is highly absurd. Rome is no coward and has no qualms using its might to eradicate the sect of Christianity. It’s at most a CSB (cool story bro) but it simply carries no weight. Please check this out http://www.christianhistoryproject.org/to-the-constantine-era/constantine/

The Christianity you mentioned, is more of the INSTITUTIONAL church which you see it is various expressions, of which I am sure you have much to rail against. I have my fair share of grouses against the institutionalism of the church but that should not concern us now. Suffice to say that whatever your criticisms against the expressions of the church today, you should deal with the actual teachings reflected in the Bible. But then again, if you have no interest to know what the Bible says, you can’t go far.

Believing in fairy tales is not for me too. You can call the Bible fairy tales if it makes it easier for you to dismiss it. But apart from crediting it to God, I can see that you have great difficulties defending your own worldview or belief system.

 

[Frodo]

So, which church do your attach yourself to? From your arguments, may I guess, do you associate with the Gnostic Church? Or since you hang on to the bible as the ultimate, are you from one of the main (early) protestant churches? Lutheran? Baptist? One cannot be faulted for seeing Christianity from the angle of the Roman Catholic Church. Most of the biblical stories (and those of Christ himself) are portrayed from Roman Catholic perspective. The Vatican's Pope, who happens to be the elected head of the church represents the voice of Christians all over the world. The current Pope is seen as a wise and good man with virtues esteemed and admired by peoples all over the world, not just catholics, but almost everyone. He is accepted as heaven's emissary here on earth, to delegate God's works and wishes. And politicians do take heed of what he says. He is definitely influential, and punches above his own weight (not physically, but from a divine vantage). The only nation which doesnt' give a shit about him would be PRC, because they've appointed their own archbishop, and wroter their own rules for Catholicism within the bamboo curtain.

BTW, you can stop calling me atheist. I did not say there is no God. I just claim that I do not know the answers to all these questions our species have been asking for millennium, and that we are still discovering as we go along.

Cheers!

Suffice it to say that I am far from Rome. Outside of Rome, many Christians wear labels that denominate themselves from each other. To me it is something that would have saddened the apostles, especially Paul who rebuked the Corinthian church for aligning themselves to certain individuals. Today we have many Christians saying “I am of Luther, I am of Kong Hee, I am of Joseph Prince, I am of Calvin etc etc”. We inherited all this historical baggage that today it is unthinkable for many that we can do without them. Anyway, this is pretty much a “family issue”, or “family quarrel” if you like. LOL!

I can overlook your ignorance about church history, the distinction between Roman Catholicism and Protestant etc. Hopefully as we progress you would have learned a thing or two and ditch the wrong ideas. One misconception that you have to get out of your system is that Rome does not speak for all believers. No matter how revered the Pope is by many, he is not the Christian’s authority, period. He can be wise, learned, virtuous etc but none of these make him an authority over the church of Christ. Regardless of how the world views the Pope, the Bible does not teach this position, neither did the early church know of this. The idea of a pope came about in the 6th century, being argued as a kind of apostolic succession starting with Peter. The idea is read back into the text but is not something that one can exegete out from the text. I shall not bore you with the details and neither would that interest you.

I hope you are not taking offense in me calling you an atheist, because in my interaction with you thus far this is the only conclusion I have reached. Perhaps you are not even sure of your own position! While you seem to call yourself an agnostic (not sure lah, nobody know lah) but yet you clearly reject miracles, reject any divine intervention, reject the explanation of God as cause. Many atheists hide behind the label of agnosticism simply because it is more convenient and does not need to shoulder a burden of proof. But that’s being intellectually dishonest since they use the very same arguments that atheists do to defend themselves. You do not need to feel ashamed of calling yourself an atheist if the label fits.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Yes. The Pope does not represent all believers in Christ - that I fully observe. There are Christians out there who see the RC as an enemy. But most other non-Christian peoples do not bother, and take it that the pontiff is the chief of Christianity on Earth. What happens between Protestant and RCs is between them. I am sure there are members from either camps who would want the chasm to be fixed. But the RC has a long history, and it is human managed, so all the faults of humans exist in it too.

Its does not offend me being labelled an atheist. And in this, you are right. I do not know how to define my position. All I can say is that I do not believe what is written in the Blble to be true. I just go by what I observe around me and try to make sense of what I can understand. I do not spend my time looking for answers to these puzzles. There have been men, much more knowledgeabl than me who spend their entire lives researching, arguing, and searching, but still remain at square one on their dying bed. I do not have the time nor interest to waste my life looking for something that cannot be found (nor understood, given our miniscule human minds). There are other more pressing and urgent things to attend to. Meanwhile, I take things as the come by. And old Chinese saying - "I work at sunrise, I rest at sunset, the sky is too high."

One thing though, although I do not pray, I am glad there are people who do. Being Christian is a good thing.

Cheers!

Suffice it to say that I am far from Rome. Outside of Rome, many Christians wear labels that denominate themselves from each other. To me it is something that would have saddened the apostles, especially Paul who rebuked the Corinthian church for aligning themselves to certain individuals. Today we have many Christians saying “I am of Luther, I am of Kong Hee, I am of Joseph Prince, I am of Calvin etc etc”. We inherited all this historical baggage that today it is unthinkable for many that we can do without them. Anyway, this is pretty much a “family issue”, or “family quarrel” if you like. LOL!

I can overlook your ignorance about church history, the distinction between Roman Catholicism and Protestant etc. Hopefully as we progress you would have learned a thing or two and ditch the wrong ideas. One misconception that you have to get out of your system is that Rome does not speak for all believers. No matter how revered the Pope is by many, he is not the Christian’s authority, period. He can be wise, learned, virtuous etc but none of these make him an authority over the church of Christ. Regardless of how the world views the Pope, the Bible does not teach this position, neither did the early church know of this. The idea of a pope came about in the 6th century, being argued as a kind of apostolic succession starting with Peter. The idea is read back into the text but is not something that one can exegete out from the text. I shall not bore you with the details and neither would that interest you.

I hope you are not taking offense in me calling you an atheist, because in my interaction with you thus far this is the only conclusion I have reached. Perhaps you are not even sure of your own position! While you seem to call yourself an agnostic (not sure lah, nobody know lah) but yet you clearly reject miracles, reject any divine intervention, reject the explanation of God as cause. Many atheists hide behind the label of agnosticism simply because it is more convenient and does not need to shoulder a burden of proof. But that’s being intellectually dishonest since they use the very same arguments that atheists do to defend themselves. You do not need to feel ashamed of calling yourself an atheist if the label fits.

 

[Frodo]

Yes. The Pope does not represent all believers in Christ - that I fully observe. There are Christians out there who see the RC as an enemy. But most other non-Christian peoples do not bother, and take it that the pontiff is the chief of Christianity on Earth. What happens between Protestant and RCs is between them. I am sure there are members from either camps who would want the chasm to be fixed. But the RC has a long history, and it is human managed, so all the faults of humans exist in it too.

Its does not offend me being labelled an atheist. And in this, you are right. I do not know how to define my position. All I can say is that I do not believe what is written in the Blble to be true. I just go by what I observe around me and try to make sense of what I can understand. I do not spend my time looking for answers to these puzzles. There have been men, much more knowledgeabl than me who spend their entire lives researching, arguing, and searching, but still remain at square one on their dying bed. I do not have the time nor interest to waste my life looking for something that cannot be found (nor understood, given our miniscule human minds). There are other more pressing and urgent things to attend to. Meanwhile, I take things as the come by. And old Chinese saying - "I work at sunrise, I rest at sunset, the sky is too high."

One thing though, although I do not pray, I am glad there are people who do. Being Christian is a good thing.

Cheers!

I have friends who are Roman Catholics. They are not my enemies. Sometimes when we meet we will share on our differences. RC are steep in their traditions, so not easy to move them off their base. I am glad you are not offended by being labelled atheist, as I think it is the correct label judging from our exchanges thus far. Not believing the Bible to be true at the very least makes you a non-Christian. But what will make you an atheist is the denial that God exists, or that there is even the spiritual or supernatural realm. Sir Anthony Flew was a long time atheist who debated many Christians on universities and taught philosophy. When about 81 years old he finally gave up atheism because he conceded that the existence of DNA points to intelligent design. He was not a Christian, but neither was he an atheist. Flew spent decades defending and promoting atheism, yet he was able to reject it entirely when faced with the evidence of intelligent design. You can read about him and the book he wrote explaining why he believe there is a God, and save the time and effort that you lament you would spend on such a thing. Lastly, am quite bemused at your saying that being a Christian is a good thing, when on the other hand you speak of Christians as being gullible and their bible beliefs as idiotic.

 

[Agoraphobic]

In Singapore, religious emotions do not run deep. Unlike elsewhere in the world, people are more passionate about these issues. For example, here, Protestant Churches and RC members, have no rift between them, their children can date each other, and even get married. This is not the case in other countries, even in countries as liberal as the United States. An example is when some Jehovah Witnesse came to my house to handout their magazines, and talk about Jesus. At my front door, I invited them to come into my living room to sit and talk, they accepted, but when they stepped into my house, and saw the Catholic altar in my house (my wife is Catholic), they changed their minds and politely turned down the invitation. It was only some time later that I watched on TV, and realised from a history documentary that Catholics went around the streets in Ontario and Quebec during the 50s and beat up Jehovah Witnesses that I realised all was not well with interfaith relations. In Singapore, we may not agree with the beliefs (or practices) of another faith, but we do not get physical. Keeping our views within ourselves. I can agree that Intelligent design theory suggests a being superior , or more advanced than us may exist (somewhere out there) but we have no idea what, or who they are. It is fair to say that God is that Intelligent being, but does not tell us anything about God. So we still conjure and image(s) about God, what it is, what it wants, and expects from us, its creation. I can accept it to this point, but will not imagine what God is, or believe what some priest (or shaman) has to say about God. It is afterall, what he imagines God to be.

Cheers!

I have friends who are Roman Catholics. They are not my enemies. Sometimes when we meet we will share on our differences. RC are steep in their traditions, so not easy to move them off their base. I am glad you are not offended by being labelled atheist, as I think it is the correct label judging from our exchanges thus far. Not believing the Bible to be true at the very least makes you a non-Christian. But what will make you an atheist is the denial that God exists, or that there is even the spiritual or supernatural realm. Sir Anthony Flew was a long time atheist who debated many Christians on universities and taught philosophy. When about 81 years old he finally gave up atheism because he conceded that the existence of DNA points to intelligent design. He was not a Christian, but neither was he an atheist. Flew spent decades defending and promoting atheism, yet he was able to reject it entirely when faced with the evidence of intelligent design. You can read about him and the book he wrote explaining why he believe there is a God, and save the time and effort that you lament you would spend on such a thing. Lastly, am quite bemused at your saying that being a Christian is a good thing, when on the other hand you speak of Christians as being gullible and their bible beliefs as idiotic.

 

[Frodo]

In Singapore, religious emotions do not run deep. Unlike elsewhere in the world, people are more passionate about these issues. For example, here, Protestant Churches and RC members, have no rift between them, their children can date each other, and even get married. This is not the case in other countries, even in countries as liberal as the United States. An example is when some Jehovah Witnesse came to my house to handout their magazines, and talk about Jesus. At my front door, I invited them to come into my living room to sit and talk, they accepted, but when they stepped into my house, and saw the Catholic altar in my house (my wife is Catholic), they changed their minds and politely turned down the invitation. It was only some time later that I watched on TV, and realised from a history documentary that Catholics went around the streets in Ontario and Quebec during the 50s and beat up Jehovah Witnesses that I realised all was not well with interfaith relations. In Singapore, we may not agree with the beliefs (or practices) of another faith, but we do not get physical. Keeping our views within ourselves. I can agree that Intelligent design theory suggests a being superior , or more advanced than us may exist (somewhere out there) but we have no idea what, or who they are. It is fair to say that God is that Intelligent being, but does not tell us anything about God. So we still conjure and image(s) about God, what it is, what it wants, and expects from us, its creation. I can accept it to this point, but will not imagine what God is, or believe what some priest (or shaman) has to say about God. It is afterall, what he imagines God to be.

Cheers!

I wonder why you would keep insisting that the intelligent designer (for simplicity sake we call God) would remain hidden from us, and that whatever we now know about God must be a matter of our own conjuring? You mean absolutely nothing can be known about God? Why would you assume that God, who created the universe, would be nothing but a deistic being at most? In our experience, whenever we invent or create something, we tend to leave our marks on it, to communicate to people using or coming across our inventions, things like who is the inventor, what the product is used for, how to use, troubleshooting. In short, the product comes with a manual to bridge the gap between user and inventor. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that God would also want to communicate to us certain truths about Himself and His creation?

 

[Agoraphobic]

Because nobody has seen God before. The best description of your God I have heard was this - God cannot be seen, but can be felt. This was afer a lengthy discussion with my wife. She has given up trying to convert me, and I have stopped ridiculing her beliefs (I used to enjoy poking fun at those beliefs, but I suppose she, like everyone else, has a right to believe, and freedom to worship, whichever God they choose. God's attempts to communicate with us, have left us open to interpreting him/her as anything from a burning bush, to ancient astronauts and/or spacemen. The more we look, the more varied this God turns out to possibly be, We will never know.

Cheers!

I wonder why you would keep insisting that the intelligent designer (for simplicity sake we call God) would remain hidden from us, and that whatever we now know about God must be a matter of our own conjuring? You mean absolutely nothing can be known about God? Why would you assume that God, who created the universe, would be nothing but a deistic being at most? In our experience, whenever we invent or create something, we tend to leave our marks on it, to communicate to people using or coming across our inventions, things like who is the inventor, what the product is used for, how to use, troubleshooting. In short, the product comes with a manual to bridge the gap between user and inventor. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that God would also want to communicate to us certain truths about Himself and His creation?

 

[Frodo]

Because nobody has seen God before. The best description of your God I have heard was this - God cannot be seen, but can be felt. This was afer a lengthy discussion with my wife. She has given up trying to convert me, and I have stopped ridiculing her beliefs (I used to enjoy poking fun at those beliefs, but I suppose she, like everyone else, has a right to believe, and freedom to worship, whichever God they choose. God's attempts to communicate with us, have left us open to interpreting him/her as anything from a burning bush, to ancient astronauts and/or spacemen. The more we look, the more varied this God turns out to possibly be, We will never know.

Cheers!

Because nobody has seen God before.

Please take a good hard look at your own words above. What assumptions do you entertain with those words? Would you be able to share with me those assumptions you have underlying those words? Or is it the case that you have no idea that you actually even have made certain assumptions to begin with? If you need some prodding, here’s one. You are assuming that only what can be seen is real, or true. Check this assumption, is it true to begin with?

 

[Agoraphobic]

For sure, it helps if it can be seen. So why is God hiding?

Nobody's seen a ghost before, and idiots still believe they exist. Smart people capitalize on people's fear and imagination and some benefit from people's "want" to believe in them. So where do ghosts exist? In our minds. We create them. Did our species do the same for God? We made him up didn't we?

Cheers!

Because nobody has seen God before

Please take a good hard look at your own words above. What assumptions do you entertain with those words? Would you be able to share with me those assumptions you have underlying those words? Or is it the case that you have no idea that you actually even have made certain assumptions to begin with? If you need some prodding, here’s one. You are assuming that only what can be seen is real, or true. Check this assumption, is it true to begin with?

 

[Frodo]

For sure, it helps if it can be seen. So why is God hiding?

Nobody's seen a ghost before, and idiots still believe they exist. Smart people capitalize on people's fear and imagination and some benefit from people's "want" to believe in them. So where do ghosts exist? In our minds. We create them. Did our species do the same for God? We made him up didn't we?

Cheers!

Now you made three flawed assumptions. First, that only what can be seen is real. Second, that God is hiding. Third, that people simply create things to believe, because of the first assumption. So epistemologically and theologically you have got it wrong. It’s one thing to give a supposed reason for why you think people believe in things unseen, but quite another to provide evidence in support of such a reason to apply to a specific case, especially with regards to the God of the Bible.

 

[Agoraphobic]

What flawed assumptions? These are just statements from real situations we see all around. Firstly, rational people need to see, feel and touch things to be convinced they are getting something real. Thant's why people prefer to shop at a mall than buy online. Second, God must be hiding, or disguised. Reason - nobody's seen him. For some reason, he (why do we keep saying he?) doesn't want to be seen. Either very shy, or ugly as hell! People create things because they want to believe in them. Like flying saucers and little green men, in this "scientific" age, they are more acceptable than ghosts, goblins, and gremlins. But they do not exist in the physical world. Only in our minds. Here, God, because he (again, he) is supposed to be superior, powerful, and everything, society holds him with some special esteem and awe. So he becomes the ultimate creation, something revered.

Cheers!

Now you made three flawed assumptions. First, that only what can be seen is real. Second, that God is hiding. Third, that people simply create things to believe, because of the first assumption. So epistemologically and theologically you have got it wrong. It’s one thing to give a supposed reason for why you think people believe in things unseen, but quite another to provide evidence in support of such a reason to apply to a specific case, especially with regards to the God of the Bible.

 

[Frodo]

What flawed assumptions? These are just statements from real situations we see all around. Firstly, rational people need to see, feel and touch things to be convinced they are getting something real. Thant's why people prefer to shop at a mall than buy online. Second, God must be hiding, or disguised. Reason - nobody's seen him. For some reason, he (why do we keep saying he?) doesn't want to be seen. Either very shy, or ugly as hell! People create things because they want to believe in them. Like flying saucers and little green men, in this "scientific" age, they are more acceptable than ghosts, goblins, and gremlins. But they do not exist in the physical world. Only in our minds. Here, God, because he (again, he) is supposed to be superior, powerful, and everything, society holds him with some special esteem and awe. So he becomes the ultimate creation, something revered.

Cheers!

Many people make statements about lots of things, but pay little or no attention to the assumptions underlying their statements. Not surprisingly so, as we would like to think, or assume (there it is again! LOL!) that people ought to think just like us. Now let’s deal with your claims one by one.

You said rational people need to see, feel and touch things to be convinced that something is real. Is your love for your wife real? Yet have you seen, felt and touched this thing called love? And not forgetting the idea of rational people, have you seen, felt and touched this thing called reason? I can add to that list but I think you get the point that there are things which are real but are not susceptible to our senses since they are not material or matter, or do you? BTW, the analogy of online shopping is completely off. Visiting a physical store or buying online is purely a lifestyle issue, and for those who buy stuff from overseas, online shopping offers the convenience of buying things without first hopping on an airplane. There is nothing unreal about online shopping!

You said that God must be hiding or disguised because nobody has seen Him. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason why you cannot see God is also the same reason why you cannot see logic, love, thoughts, reason, feelings which you do not deny are real? Because these are immaterial by nature. God is Spirit. He is invisible. God is not made up of matter, so what’s the matter if you cannot see God? It’s not that God does not want to be seen, but that by nature He cannot be seen! It’s like asking to see the invisible man, how rational is such a request? So your rants about not seeing God is irrational to say the least! But other than actually seeing with your own eyes, how does one go about proving to himself that certain things are real? Though I must also qualify that the lack of proof that something is real does not therefore mean that this something is not real. To conclude so would be a fallacy. But atheists are often guilty of fallacious reasoning, which is quite ironic given that they esteem themselves as some kind of thinking elite! LOL!

 

[Agoraphobic]

People have to live according to the laws of the land, the norms of the society, their physical limitations. Beyond these, some have faith, and under dire circumstances, their faith helps them get by. But people still have to live. And they go by what they can, to make the best of their lives. Religion is secondary. They wish for God and religion fills that void in their lives, because things are uncertain (more so in the past than today), they rely on their Gods for comfort. In this, some believe they have to appease their Gods, make sacrifices and similar acts to gain their favours. Some people attribute their good fortune to blessings and kindness from the Gods, others view it as their own hard work, and perhaps luck. And when their is catastrophe, it is God that was angered? That solves everything I suppose.

Cheers!

Many people make statements about lots of things, but pay little or no attention to the assumptions underlying their statements. Not surprisingly so, as we would like to think, or assume (there it is again! LOL!) that people ought to think just like us. Now let’s deal with your claims one by one.

You said rational people need to see, feel and touch things to be convinced that something is real. Is your love for your wife real? Yet have you seen, felt and touched this thing called love? And not forgetting the idea of rational people, have you seen, felt and touched this thing called reason? I can add to that list but I think you get the point that there are things which are real but are not susceptible to our senses since they are not material or matter, or do you? BTW, the analogy of online shopping is completely off. Visiting a physical store or buying online is purely a lifestyle issue, and for those who buy stuff from overseas, online shopping offers the convenience of buying things without first hopping on an airplane. There is nothing unreal about online shopping!

You said that God must be hiding or disguised because nobody has seen Him. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason why you cannot see God is also the same reason why you cannot see logic, love, thoughts, reason, feelings which you do not deny are real? Because these are immaterial by nature. God is Spirit. He is invisible. God is not made up of matter, so what’s the matter if you cannot see God? It’s not that God does not want to be seen, but that by nature He cannot be seen! It’s like asking to see the invisible man, how rational is such a request? So your rants about not seeing God is irrational to say the least! But other than actually seeing with your own eyes, how does one go about proving to himself that certain things are real? Though I must also qualify that the lack of proof that something is real does not therefore mean that this something is not real. To conclude so would be a fallacy. But atheists are often guilty of fallacious reasoning, which is quite ironic given that they esteem themselves as some kind of thinking elite! LOL!

 

[Frodo]

People have to live according to the laws of the land, the norms of the society, their physical limitations. Beyond these, some have faith, and under dire circumstances, their faith helps them get by. But people still have to live. And they go by what they can, to make the best of their lives. Religion is secondary. They wish for God and religion fills that void in their lives, because things are uncertain (more so in the past than today), they rely on their Gods for comfort. In this, some believe they have to appease their Gods, make sacrifices and similar acts to gain their favours. Some people attribute their good fortune to blessings and kindness from the Gods, others view it as their own hard work, and perhaps luck. And when their is catastrophe, it is God that was angered? That solves everything I suppose.

Cheers!

You seem to go off tangent again without responding to what I wrote.

Considering how religious people are (including those atheists and freethinkers who also consider themselves spiritual LOL!) it is definitely not true that religion is secondary. By reducing it to mere wish-fulfilment is simply to just come up with a just-so explanation. You have not explained why people are religious by nature, moral beings by nature, rational beings by nature etc. But then again, atheism is unable to explain any of these. Those who try can only appeal to evolutionary means, but that is riddled with even more problems!

 

[Agoraphobic]

That's because the human being is an animal that is curious, with questions. And because nobody is able to provide the answers, we keep looking for them, and in doing so, we keep learning, and discovering. Problems, there will always be problems! That's just part of being and keeping alive. You mean to say that people who believe in God do not have problems? Oh yes, they don't, God solves them! Have fun!

Cheers!

You seem to go off tangent again without responding to what I wrote.

Considering how religious people are (including those atheists and freethinkers who also consider themselves spiritual LOL!) it is definitely not true that religion is secondary. By reducing it to mere wish-fulfilment is simply to just come up with a just-so explanation. You have not explained why people are religious by nature, moral beings by nature, rational beings by nature etc. But then again, atheism is unable to explain any of these. Those who try can only appeal to evolutionary means, but that is riddled with even more problems!

 

[Frodo]

That's because the human being is an animal that is curious, with questions. And because nobody is able to provide the answers, we keep looking for them, and in doing so, we keep learning, and discovering. Problems, there will always be problems! That's just part of being and keeping alive. You mean to say that people who believe in God do not have problems? Oh yes, they don't, God solves them! Have fun!

Cheers!

The only reason why you would say human being is an animal is because of evolutionary thinking. Evolution makes a monkey out of you. But the evidence for evolution is so flimsy but most of its defenders hardly question it. Simply because evolution for them has become evolutionism, a religion. The irony! To seek answers means to first ask the right questions. What questions are you asking? And where do you suppose the answers can be found? Where do you get the idea that I even hinted that believers have no problems? Jesus’ followers met with cruel deaths at the hands of Jews and Romans. Many were thrown into prisons and battled wild beasts as entertainment sports for the masses. Not a problem you say? Excuse me? Christians also fall sick and die, get retrenched from jobs and face financial difficulties. No problems you say? But lest you make a strawman reply, the Bible NEVER teach that those who believe in God will have a problem-free life. So this is a myth or misconception about Christianity that you should rid yourself of.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Our human evolution can be said to be a recent knowledge. And we're still discovering. Because not long ago, our species believed that God made us (from the Christian book) while other races (and religions) had their own theories. But the evidence that we evolved from some primate ancestor is still somewhat new. You may call this flimsy, but it is what we've gathered to date. Of course to those who need the answers more urgently, the way to this is the way we've accepted for a long time already - that God made us. There were no earlier forms of humans. What you see is what was originally made. We've since learnt much about nature, the world (and universe) around us, developed new technology from what we learnt and discovered. Of course you can also argue that this knowledge came from God. In which case, I can't argue any further on this, because your God ultimately wins as he is infinite, while we are mere mortals. And are finite in our wisdom and abilities.

Cheers!

The only reason why you would say human being is an animal is because of evolutionary thinking. Evolution makes a monkey out of you. But the evidence for evolution is so flimsy but most of its defenders hardly question it. Simply because evolution for them has become evolutionism, a religion. The irony! To seek answers means to first ask the right questions. What questions are you asking? And where do you suppose the answers can be found? Where do you get the idea that I even hinted that believers have no problems? Jesus’ followers met with cruel deaths at the hands of Jews and Romans. Many were thrown into prisons and battled wild beasts as entertainment sports for the masses. Not a problem you say? Excuse me? Christians also fall sick and die, get retrenched from jobs and face financial difficulties. No problems you say? But lest you make a strawman reply, the Bible NEVER teach that those who believe in God will have a problem-free life. So this is a myth or misconception about Christianity that you should rid yourself of.

 

[Frodo]

Our human evolution can be said to be a recent knowledge. And we're still discovering. Because not long ago, our species believed that God made us (from the Christian book) while other races (and religions) had their own theories. But the evidence that we evolved from some primate ancestor is still somewhat new. You may call this flimsy, but it is what we've gathered to date. Of course to those who need the answers more urgently, the way to this is the way we've accepted for a long time already - that God made us. There were no earlier forms of humans. What you see is what was originally made. We've since learnt much about nature, the world (and universe) around us, developed new technology from what we learnt and discovered. Of course you can also argue that this knowledge came from God. In which case, I can't argue any further on this, because your God ultimately wins as he is infinite, while we are mere mortals. And are finite in our wisdom and abilities.

Cheers!

But this begs the question, did humans evolve from some apelike ancestor which in turn evolve from some other creature which goes all the way back to the UCA? For the atheist the story of evolution (yes, you read it correctly, it’s a story) is the only origins story available to tell. And what exactly is the evidence for human evolution? As far as I know, there are more speculations and illustrations than actual hard evidence, and the evidences that we have for so-called evolution are usually the tiny bone fragments from which is extrapolated an entire made up apeman! Talk about vivid imagination! It is not about needing answers urgently, but about what the evidence really shows, and what beliefs are driving the conclusions. Is there any reason to reject a traditional answer that God made us? Or are you just rejecting it because it is a traditional answer? Old or new, the answer must be true to be accepted. If God is the only answer to the question, then why run away from the answer, or are you running away from God? Just a few days ago the newspapers ran an article on the dragonfly and said about how the insect was a master of flight that was “DESIGNED BY NATURE”. Wow, read that again, designed by nature? Designed? Our human experience tells us that the word “designed” is associated with intelligence, a creative intelligent mind no less! The article credits nature with that ability to design the dragonfly for flight? Something is wrong isn’t it? But the evolutionist and atheist would blindly nod in agreement at that statement. That’s being blinded by the atheism worldview.