Atheism is faith based, just like any other religion

Where does God or gods come from? What are their attributes? What proof do you have of their existance? What other supernatural beliefs do you adhere to with or without any proof? What is the basis for your positive belief(s) in those supernatural places or entities if it is not proof (faith in authority figures or ancient scrolls or what is it that has convinced you of your beliefs in the first place)?

I'll openly admit here that I have a faith in the scientific method. I've seen it and I know it works in matters of revealing the truth.

I'll also openly admit that I don't have faith in superstitious rituals (tithing, cracker and wine ceremonies, praying, fasting, abstaining from sex and drugs, holy rolling around on the ground, spirit healing, virgin mary cheese sandwiches, etc)....what superstitious activities do you get your kicks from?

I base my beliefs on observable facts. Last time I checked "supernatural" was not considered an observable fact. It seems that you imply that if a person leaves open the idea that everything could have been designed by a creator then that person is superstitious or believes in flying yeti's or something. Your devout dogma shows thru clearly. --------example to clarify my un-supernatural/ scientific method point: when the Antikythera mechanism was found in 1901 of the coast of Greece people did not think it was a natural metal formation. It seems to be designed and have a purpose, even though the creator was never seen nor will he/she ever be known. If you see intricate and well balanced "things" that serve a purpose then it is not supernatural nor superstitious to leave open the idea that they may have been designed and created. The earth and universe is here, we didn’t create it we are merely learning from it. To rule out a creator is just as unscientific/narrow-minded as a devout religious follower. So atheist's should not claim science as their belief system because they are unscientific in making such a concrete conclusion.

Now that I have explained my open-mindedness, "flux" what guru or UFO convinced you of your devout/unwavering belief in atheism?

Thanks flux for giving me more evidence to back up my point. Point being that a devout atheist is just as narrow-minded as a bible thumping Christian.

The Earth was not designed. Cosmology is the branch of science that investigates planetary formation, I'll admit that it is far from complete in the details, but we certainly can throw a designer hypothesis out as no good. There is no big skycrane anywhere to be found in a cosmology/astronomy textbook and (lol) the answer would also be wrong on an essay test too. The formation of planets and stars is every bit as natural as the formation of volcanic islands and glacier carved lakes. I realize this is all hard to swallow, in fact it's good for somebody coming from a Christian background (or any background) to be skeptical of scientific claims, but it will all start making better sense once you research these matters in greater depth. Eventually, however, we all run into unanswered questions somewhere along the line which is what the scientific method is all about. I don't, however, see that invoking the supernatural will ever explain the natural world that we live in, that is not in my predictions for the future, but perhaps it was so in the past with ancient scrolls and people whom didn't take much rigor in investigating extraordinary claims.

Your unwavering, devout, belief is staggering. - I guess you are the guru that should educate scientists since you certainly "know" so much as fact.
"The important difference between science and religion is that religion comes with ABSOLUTE statements". - You keep uttering a series of "absolute" statements and therefore you are speaking of belief NOT science. You also have a BELIEF that I am some unlearned idiot with a Christian background (without ANY indication of such)! So far I have kept my conversation with you to a elementary level so you can understand, but apparently you cannot grasp the most basic form of science....ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES' ARE FALSIFIABLE....NO ABSOLUTES. But you say "we certainly can throw a designer hypothesis out as no good" because you BELIEVE that this is true.
once again an athiest's UNscientific DOGMA shines thru to the world.

Go Here: The Secular Bible

Also of note: Feynman on "The Hierarchy of Ideas"

See, I've got no problem with philosophy or dogma or belief, in fact I encourage it so long as it is tempered by reason and it doesn't get bogged down or refrain from examining new forms of evidence ;)

By the way, I choose to believe in absolutes because there are absolutes in the world. The physical laws that govern the universe are absolute, they may change with time but then the laws that govern those changes must there-to-fore be absolute...that's my belief anyhow, I'm not expecting up to be down anytime soon or anything like that.

thank you flux for sharing those links and your opinions, they are very interesting.

dw - The burden of proof is the domain of those making the claim. You claim god exists, prove it.
Atheism is not based on faith by any stretch of the imagination. Reason and common sense and Scientific analysis form the basis for dismissing religious claims.
Atheism is the absence of theism. Nothing more. Those that label it anything else are ignoring reality and possess another objective or vendetta.

Atheism is a non-provable belief. A person who claims to be an atheist must have faith in his/her beliefs in order to come to such a definitive conclusion.

Theism is a non-provable belief. A person who claims to be a theist must have faith in his/her beliefs in order to come to such a definitive conclusion.

If a person has simply not come to ANY conclusion then they may not want to use Atheist/Theist to describe themselves.

Many atheists say that they do not even claim that there is no god, but rather that they lack any god belief. (I don't - I actually say that there is no god.)

Furthermore, there are lots of things which you would easily say do not exist, which you would find it very hard to prove not to exist.

Mike,
You seem to be going round in circles by deliberately ignoring what we are saying.

I think we all agree that you can't prove there are no gods, but what you seem to keep ignoring is the fact that just because you can't disprove the existence of something, that doesn't mean that there is any good reason to believe in it. I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist; I can't prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. I can't prove Zog doesn't exist. There are an infinite number of things whose existence I can't disprove, but that doesn't mean that there is slightest reason to believe that any of them do exist. I don't need faith to disbelieve any of them, just like you don't need faith to disbelieve in Zog.

Actually the atheist position is even stronger than that.

You can disprove the existence of certain gods or supernatural creatures, because claims about them are logically inconsistent. You can also prove that at least most of the gods and other supernatural beings we have invented do not exist, because their mutual existence is contradictory. Therefore, clearly people invent gods and supernatural creatures. In fact people have invented vast numbers of imaginary beings. I think you would have to agree about that. So not only is there no credible evidence supporting the existence of gods, but there is considerable good evidence that gods are invented by people. I am not aware of any reason to believe that there are any exceptions to that general rule.

So why again does atheism require faith? You keep asserting that, but you can't provide any good reason to support your unfounded assertion. The best you can do is to say that we can't disprove god, but, as we have repeately pointed out, that in itself is not a good enough reason to accept the existence of god as a serious possibility. To convince you to consider the existence of Zog as a serious proposition, I'm sure you would want at least a smidgeon of evidence.

As this was mentioned in another thread, Zog is a hypothetical being who is deluding Mike Durland into thinking that I made the previous posts that he thinks I made. I deny making all posts before this one and claim Zog is just making Mike Durland think I made those posts.

Mike has not said why Zog should be taken any less seriously than God. Mike might make claims of evidence, or causes of complexity, etc to answer this, but I would view this as part of a flawed argument. Mike was not saying atheists are wrong to dismiss God because there is all the evidence. He was saying we are wrong to be so close minded anyway - because we can't prove there is no God - without even needing evidence for God.

Mike has so far evaded the entire issue of things like Zog and accused me of being "childish". He will not honestly deal with the serious issue of why God and Zog should be treated differently in terms of what we can and cannot say about them. If he has any answer, and wants to appear to be trying to take part in a productive discussion, as at least two people are making an issue of why God should not be treated like any other hypothesized object, he should answer.

Why is it then, that if my argument is so groundless (as Paul & Pythagoras claim), that my postings are focused upon so meticulously. There are many groundless and unintelligent comments posted on this website that are ignored. Yet mine are grinded out to the extreme. I am not complaining at all, I enjoy attentive conversations.

I think the main problem is that we have different points of view that make us see the same point differently. You sometimes say the same things that I say yet you disagree with me nonetheless.

I still insist that a free mind has no labels (E.g. Christian, Muslim or even Athiest)

I am not ignoring your comments or arguments (as Pythagoras said) I just don’t see it the same way you do. I try to convey my position the best way I know how.

I don’t hate/dislike anybody on this website (like I am hated and disliked). My belligerence is based on a fundamental disagreement, not anger, hate, or any other vendetta.

Hi Mike,
No anger or hatred from me. Some mild frustration perhaps, but getting angry over a philosophical discussion on an internet forum is not sensible. I've got much more important things to be angry about.

I've been debating you because I enjoy such discussions. There's not much point in talking to people who have exactly the same point of view as I do.

If people are responding to your comments, take it as a compliment.

I don't mind others having a different opinion. You don't have to agree with me.

I don't like the label "Atheist" very much either - it doesn't mean much and it is often misused or misrepresented. It always seems absurd to me that we have such a term - e.g. we don't need a special term for people who don't play sport. The term really only exists because religious people find it hard to believe that someone can have no religion, so we have to have a label to represent a non-religion. I prefer to say "I'm not religious". Religious people are always assuming that atheism is a "faith", a religion or a "belief system". Actually it's not an "ism" at all.

Regards,
Pythagoras

Hi Guys,
I am new to this blog. I just would like to say that you may be getting tripped up by semantics...and the word you might all be looking for is not Atheist but Agnostic: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known, of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena."
However, even this position by definition, still requires one to hold a "belief"....sorry about that. I think Mikedurland has a point...no matter what position you "hold"...this position is "held" via a belief...which is unprovable, and thus is by definition a faith based position. This is just basic logic.

For example, I might have grown up in some isolated jungle valley and as an adult I am informed that there are things called "Cities" that have "huts" that stretch up into the sky and millions of people live there. Now, I might say that I definitely do not believe such places exist (Atheist) or I may say I know nothing of such things (other than what I have been told by the visitor from outside) and nothing can be known about them (Agnostic). In either case each position requires one to hold a belief based on the available evidence, which in this hypothetical story is verbal evidence only).

Yes, I know the above analogy is actually provable, but please try to go with it, if you would, for the purposes of illustration. The actual subject we are discussing is singularly unique, in that we are NOT able to prove it one way or the other.
If Atheists or Theists could prove their positions, don't you think they would have done it by now??

You can say "I don't have a belief", but you do, as not having a belief would logically mean you had not formed an opinion...a position.....a worldview. You all clearly do have an opinion, and to say otherwise would be disingenuous. This is all just basic English grammar, syntax and logic.

Now, finally back in the real world, you not only have alleged verbal/written evidence for God (The Bible) but you also have a whole intricately wrought universe: The Great Enigma.......which is equivalent to being handed a photo of a skyscraper!!
Cheers
Hunter777

Pythagoras, I agree with your last comment 100%.

Hunter777 has clarified most of what I was trying to say, thank you! (I concede to your superior writing skills :)

If you think that I am meticulously dealing with your postings, then I thank you for the generous compliment, and hope to similarly deal with your postings in the future.

Hunter,
I think, technically, virtually everyone is agnostic about God. Very, very few of our beliefs are "provable", but that does not mean that we can't have good reasons for believing what we believe.

Belief and knowledge are different things. I believe there are no gods, but I don't know that for sure. That makes me both an agnostic and an atheist. You can be both. While I don't like the term "atheist", it does describe what I believe about gods. Calling myself an "agnostic" is likely to mislead people into believing that I haven't made up my mind. I have made up my mind. I'm pretty sure that none of the gods that people have described actually exist, and that is not a faith position; I have good reasons for believing that.

There is verbal and written evidence for many thousands (perhaps even millions) of gods and supernatural creatures, and countless supernatural occurrences. What is really suspicious about this is that it is so hard to find any convincing evidence for any of them. If there was such evidence, we would not be talking about "faith", we would be talking about "knowledge". The "evidence", such as it is, is logically inconsistent and incoherent in so many ways, and there are so many cases where we can be certain that the evidence is not valid. I think that proves that people like to make up stories to explain things. I don't think it proves anything more than that.

I spent a good solid ten years of my life searching for evidence of the supernatural. I didn't find one scrap of reliable evidence. I met many people who believed all kinds of crazy things that were pretty obviously (given a basic knowledge of science) false. Many times I thought I had come across something that could only have a supernatural explanation, but each time, after looking more closely, I found a natural explanation. The closer I looked the more fuzzy the "evidence" seemed to get. The more questions I asked, the less convincing the answers got. It is very easy for people to be fooled and to fool themselves. We have bad memories and we exaggerate. When a story has been told a few times it becomes more interesting.

Your analogy is not valid. A picture of a skyscraper is evidence that skyscrapers exist. We don't have any such evidence for gods. In fact we can be pretty sure that most gods don't exist.

The properties of the universe don't prove that a god exists. The existence and properties of the universe certainly do not provide evidence that Yahweh is not a fictional entity. To explain the complexity of the universe, by positing a designer god that is presumably more complex than the universe and for which we have no reliable evidence makes no sense at all. To me, it makes more sense to just assume that the universe "just is". That view is consistent with our knowledge and makes no unnecessary assumptions.

Regards,
Pythagoras

Editor's note: See Global Gods for examples of deities that humans have invented over the ages.

Here is the problems that I see with this sort of conclusion.

First, this sort of tripe is not very original, the whole "it takes more faith to be an atheist" nonsense. It doesn't, all it takes is the commitment to base one's beliefs on evidence, nothing more than that.

Secondly, how does the theist reconcile the fact that they disbelieve (are atheists) towards all the other gods that are out there that the theist has chosen not to believe in with the exception of one specific sky-daddy and are not to be considered narrow minded? This has never been adequately explained.

Third, and most importantly, theists don't really believe in what they claim to believe in. For instance, they rail against evolution and then partake of the medical advances that come about from the evolutionary biology that underlie modern medicine. This in spite of the fact that their so-called holy books give explicit instructions on dealing with illness. But the theist knows that those instructions are lies; they don't work any better than drinking urine out of a goat scrotum. They spend pages and pages rationalizing why it is okay to use modern medicine while at the same time opposing evolution. Why do the clear statements of scripture have to be "contextualized" in order to explain their failure; why not admidt that it is bull and doesn't work; the promises are lies, in other words. On the other hand, when a scientific hypothesis fails, it is discarded. So where is the parity between the two?

You as a theist believe in all sorts of things, galaxies, the microbial theory of life (you do believe in bacteria, right?), the spherical earth, the existance of other planets, etc. Your bretheren in the faith killed people for believing in these and many other things that you take for granted are the "way that it is". Why did they do that? Why, because it contradicted the plain teaching of scripture. Your life and what you believe about the world is the best example of how wrong scripture is but you are to wrapped up in the quest for "eternal life" to even see that. You just don't get it do you? Once you finally understand that point, my friend, you will cease to see us as narrow minded; we have just run out of pity and patience for hypocrites like you, nothing more.

who are you directing your comments to?

I agree with this statement you made "I'm pretty sure that none of the gods that people have described actually exist". I try to leave open the possibility of a creator that is unknown by humans, since we don't know for sure either way. I also leave open the possibility that the universe "just is".

Like most of you here, I have found no religious"guru" who has convinced me of anything.

Hello Extropian58,
I can see that my previous post has had a deep effect on you, by the vitriolic ad hominem insults in your response.
To wit:

"Your life and what you believe about the world is the best example of how wrong scripture is"

"we have just run out of pity and patience for hypocrites like you, nothing more"

I am guessing extrop (may I call you extrop?)....I am guessing that you have lost someone very near and dear to you through some long drawn out medical condition....am I correct?

Are you angry at God and the Church? Or are you just mad at all religion because you came out of some sort of "cult" situation? What's the deal..........why are you so angry?? Do you have some sort of Church background?

These sort of forums only work well when people can remain...to a certain extent, dispassionate and clear thinking. You can't think clearly when you're emotional and doing the literary version of screaming at someone.

Here is a suggestion: In my last post I dealt with a single aspect of the Theist Vs. Atheist debate...I focused on one narrow area in an attempt to convey a viewpoint.

I would like to be able to respond to you, but it would be good if you stopped "transmitting on all frequencies" and maybe addressed one issue at a time. That way we might be able to have a better conversation.

And do we really need the colourful word pictures of "drinking urine out of a goat scrotum"? This sort of language serves no other purpose than to attempt to intimidate.
I have to tell you extrop,....its not working.

Hunter777

Mike,
I also leave open the possibility that there might be a "creator", but I don't see any point in talking about something we don't have any evidence for that we don't know anything about. Unless someone finds some evidence for such a thing, it has no relevance to anyone.

I don't really understand why people subscribe to deism. I think deists are people who have been brainwashed by Christianity (or some other theistic religion) and can't let go of the idea of God despite the fact that they can see that there is absolutely no convincing evidence.

The problem with an unknown creator is that it is completely unknown. If you say anything about it, you are just making stuff up, so it is no more likely to be real than pixies, my pet dragon, Zog, or anything else you might make up.

If something did actually deliberately and intentionally create the universe, I doubt I could even imagine what kind of a thing it is or what kind of a world it inhabits. The only thing I might venture to say about it is that it probably a consequence of an evolutionary process, since evolution is the only theory I know of have that can explain how complex things with purpose and intentions can arise. But that's just pure speculation.

Check out this article by psychotherapist Albert Ellis. It's quite enlightening.

Hello Pythagoras,
I will deal with your comments in sequence;
1. "I think, technically, virtually everyone is agnostic about God"

By use of the word "technically" do you mean strict and rigorous? If you do, then based on my previous dictionary (technical) definition of an Agnostic, your statement is patently untrue. It is untrue because the defintion itself, once again, is defined by what one "believes".
I can tell you that I for one and I personally know many people who do, "believe" that there are things that can be known about God. Gnostics, if you will (not the ancient heretical cult). Therefore not everyone is Agnostic about God. The number of people in the world who are not agnostic is significant enough, so as to to make your use of the word "virtually" inappropriate, if not inaccurate.

2. "Belief and knowledge are different things. I believe there are no gods, but I don't know that for sure. That makes me both an agnostic and an atheist. You can be both."

Belief: a. A persons religion b. a firm opinion c. an acceptance of a thing, statement d. Trust or confidence in something or someone.

I am using the last definition; Trust or confidence in (something or someone)

Knowledge: Philos. True, justified belief; certain understanding as opposed to opinion.

It would seem that from the above Dictionary definitions, that knowledge is actually a subset of belief, and is that type of belief that is "justified". Now, we would then have to ask, what constitutes "justification". Well, for practical matters of pure and applied science it is the experimental verification of a theoretical framework. (Theroretical Framework = "belief"). However, we should also ask ourselves is scientifically derived "knowledge" the only form of knowledge? (ie; Justified belief). That is to say, is the scientific emperical method the only possible form of justification?
The big existential questions of life are not amenable to examination under a microscope, nor can their answers be detected with a voltmeter, nor detected with a double blind statistical test.
Ultimately, these questions and what you "believe" about their answers will only become knowledge (justified belief) when you die. Either the atheists are right, but you wont know it, cause you wont know anything, or the theists are right and based on what I "believe", you will know it......
Now about being an agnostic and an atheist, that you can be both.....Pythagoras, you need to think more clearly.
The reason there are 2 different words is because they are defining 2 mutually exclusive positions. Agnosticism is saying it "believes" nothing can be known (that is literally the meaning of the word in greek). Atheism is not saying this, it is in fact saying the opposite, that it "believes" that something can be known, which is that God does not exist. Clear?

3. "I have made up my mind. I'm pretty sure that none of the gods that people have described actually exist, and that is not a faith position; I have good reasons for believing that."

In light of the above discussion, I hope you can see that this third statement is laying out a false dichotomy of "faith position" Vs. "good reasons for believing".

The implication in your statement is that those people who hold a faith position have "beliefs" that are not "justified", but that your beliefs are justified (you have "good reasons"). You are saying in light of the above definition of "knowledge" that your beliefs are that subset of beliefs that are "justified", that is to say: "knowledge".

However you already admitted earlier that: "I believe there are no gods, but I don't know that for sure." Therefore you are not thinking through clearly what you are trying to say and your statements are not consistent.
I would agree with you that you indeed DO NOT know that there are no "gods".
Similarly, as I have already said, my beliefs are not "knowledge" at this stage either as they have not been fully justified.

Thats enough for now, I need to hit the sack, but I will give you one more definition of "befief" or Faith;
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
The Letter to the Hebrews Chapter 11 verse 1.

Regards

Hunter777

An unknown creator is completely hypothetical on my part.

I also agree that there is a tremendous amount of phenomena that we can observe and learn from without going into hypothetical theories.

Unfortunately, the origin of the observable universe has to remain in the hypothetical realm for now.

People who claim to know are unscientific.

Hello Hunter,
It seems every time I discuss the work "agnostic" I end up using a different definition to the person I'm talking to. :-(

Last time I got lectured by an "agnostic atheist" because I used the definition you are using.

If you look up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

There are many flavours of agnosticism. I was using the term to mean "weak agnosticism".

I don't care what you call it, but I think the vast majority of people would admit that they don't know whether there is a god or not. That's the point I was trying to make. Do you not agree? Perhaps you socialise with very religious people who I think are in the minority.

As for your claim about a false dichotomy, I firmly disagree with that. Perhaps your definition of "faith" is also different to mine. I define "faith" to mean belief without evidence. As I said, if you believe something because of faith, it really means that you don't have a good reason to believe it. You don't need faith to believe something if you have good reasons to believe it. In that case you wouldn't call it "faith". It would just be knowledge.

Most people have the same religion as their parents. This proves that people don't believe what they believe about religion for good reasons.

I agree with the "definition" from Hebrews. But faith is an extremely bad reason to believe something.

I've read something similar before by (I think) a different psychotherapist, but I can't find a reference. I agree almost 100% with the article, but I don't usually admit it to anyone because it tends to make religious people get very mad at me. ;-)

Hi CyndyB,
What do you think the "good" Dr. would prescribe for my Religious leanings? Hmmmmm.....lets see....Lithium??? Lobotomy??? Shock Therapy, or maybe just Euthenasia...??

I can see where the "good" Dr. is heading, after all we can't have all these loony religious people running around at large in society now can we? I think a little bit of eugenics might be in order don't you? I mean it must be genetic right?

In my opinion, Dr. Albert Ellis, if he really exists, doesn't have terrific writing skills, as the "paper", although purporting to be a scholarly research paper, is actually nothing more than poorly written diatribe.
Furthermore, one can detect behind it the usual rabid frothing hate of the Misotheist......along with the frantic search for some solid intellectual footing,......any half baked footing, even if its only anecdotal opinion,.......that might be passed off as rational argument, from which to "mount" the...errr......"the rebellion"........against God.

If you can't beat em....just lock em up! right?....in a padded cell, thats it! Who needs intelligent dialogue, just call them nuts and throw away the key!

You might as well shut down this forum and just send out the Goon squads to round us up.....

Are you willing to go along with the "good" Dr.? ......Hmmmmm? Have his "arguments" convinced you???

I really do find all people such as the "good" Dr., both shocking and tragic.
But, I will tell you what they aren't......they're aren't mentally unstable and therefore wont be able to plead insanity when they come to Judgment.

In summary the "paper", in my opinion, is hopelessly amateurish and as for being quite "enlightening", what a crack up!!! LOL

He knows nothing of God, the Christian lifestyle, nor the Christian Gospel (Good News)........

Get serious......

Hunter777

"I am guessing extrop (may I call you extrop?)....I am guessing that you have lost someone very near and dear to you through some long drawn out medical condition....am I correct?"

You may certainly call me "extrop" or Rich but not late for dinner. To answer the second question: no, not at all.

"Are you angry at God and the Church? Or are you just mad at all religion because you came out of some sort of "cult" situation? What's the deal..........why are you so angry?? Do you have some sort of Church background?"

Actually, I am not angry at all but even if I was, it certainly doesn't affect the truth or falsity of any statements you or I make. "2+2=4" is true whether you are in a good mood or bad, happy, angry or sad when you state it. One thing I certainly am not is a fisherman so the red herrings are pointless, just as an aside. The correct emotion is pity; the same pity I feel for bigots, people who fleece the elderly or people who dream of hitting the lotto and becoming rich, to name a few examples.

"And do we really need the colourful word pictures of "drinking urine out of a goat scrotum"? This sort of language serves no other purpose than to attempt to intimidate.
I have to tell you extrop,....its not working."

Not looking to intimidate whatsoever and, to be honest, I got that phrase from Dawkins and that is a valid religious ritual somewhere in the world, according to him if my memory serves. Sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do, right? It is and just as effecacious as any other religious ritual (I'll explain that a little more later on).

"I can see that my previous post has had a deep effect on you, by the vitriolic ad hominem insults in your response.
To wit:

"Your life and what you believe about the world is the best example of how wrong scripture is"

I see nothing that would indicate an ad hominem attack, specifically an ad hominem tu quoque, which I think you are alluding to. My point, which was specifically focused on the theist's realtionship with scientific knowledge and how they live their lives in light of that knowledge, was this:

Christian theists claim to have a book from god in which there are very specific instructions along with the promise of very specific results on the treating of illnesses. (James 5:14-16) So why the need for Christians to go to doctors or to do anything else for that matter in light of that verse? There are no conditions attached to what Paul says, none whatsoever. Soooooooooo, why the need to go running to modern medicine especially when it is based on evolutionary biology at its foundation? When "god" tells the Christian to do one thing when they are sick and they ignore that and go elsewhere, what should one take away from that? Their talk and their walk are going in different directions. We secularists call people who go through life like that "hypocrites". Let's talk specifics, shall we, and perhaps it will be a little clearer? Let's look at Polio for a moment. Now, god's promise in James has been around for at least 1900 years. Up until the vaccine for Polio was invented, what was the cure rate for Christians who followed the teaching in James compared to non-christians who didn't? Care to venture a guess? What was the cure rate for Muslims, Buddhists, pagans, wiccans or out-and-out non-believers compared to Christians who followed the teaching in James prior to the vaccine's introduction? It was exactly the same, zero. Now, after the vaccine became available, what was the cure rate, regardless of what the patient did or did not assent to vis-a-vis the "supernatural"? You get the point, whether you will admit it or not. One last point on this wonderful passage from James: how many of the children afflicted with Polio were stricken with that disease because of sin in their lives? James mentions that as well.

You say you want to have a meaningful dialogue? Okay, here is a question for you that everyone can see and understand and at least we will have a goal or a focus to all of this: What would convince you that your theistic beliefs are wrong? Here is what would convince me that my rejection of theistic claims are in error: evidence, in this case seeing a church annointing sick people with cancer having a higher cure rate than modern medical science. If not cancer, pick something easy like diabetes or high blood pressure. Now what could be easier? If you are really, really looking to have a dialogue and not just to blow hot air, you'll give an answer to that question. My feeling is that you will side step that question; you are not on a quest for truth, rather, you are on a quest to prove in your own mind that your religious beliefs have some sort of intellectual merit and are not stories made up by people who thought the world was flat, demons and sorcerers roamed the countryside and that infections were caused by sin and/or demons, not microbes. People will believe anything if the payoff is eternal life, whether they lived 2000 years ago or they are alive today. The people who lived 2000 years ago didn't know any better. The people who are alive today do and, as I said in my previous letter, it is a pathetic thing to watch. One feels pity for the followers and scorn for the leaders. Think otherwise, my friend? Go watch Ted Haggard's and Richard Dawkins' exchange and see who is the arrogant one, see who really believed what they preached and whose public and private lives were in harmony. Who was the hypocrite in that exchange? Bet you won't answer that one, either.

I know we touched upon this subject already, but I would like to know a few things;

why (according to self-declared atheists) is the existence of a virtually unknown universe and a very complex yet balanced world is NOT considered evidence for a creator? Not to mention the laws that govern the universe.

This is the main reason why I keep all options open.

We all know the vast universe is amazing but observable life is too; just one animal/plant cell is more complex than anything humans can create. I am not coming to any conclusions, but it seems unlikely for anything to come into existence and increase in complexity on its own.

If you mean some sort of a supernatural designer, then why would you conclude that the universe obeys natural laws of causality in the first place? To me, the presence of a universe that obeys a fundamental set of natural physical laws, without any proven exceptions, is perfectly clear evidence against a supernatural designer or interveigner of any sort...."The Principle of the Fundamental 'Natural Laws' of Causality"

On the other hand, if you are implying some sort of natural designer for the natural universe, then that is a subject matter that science is capable of addressing using logic and objective evidence. If the universe has some sort of natural designer, then there are nuts and bolts that govern the natural designer just as there are nuts and bolts that govern the natural universe. To the best of my knowledge, there are no such natural designers that have been discovered, but if there was one it should be discovered eventually through scientific exploration. Furthermore, if the laws that govern our universe are malleable, then it should be possible for humans to eventually change them around, this however I don't think is possible (a human engineer can't really make electrical forces obey some other kind of law besides the inverse square law at present, and I've got my doubts that electicity will ever obey anything besides the inverse square law that it already does) and thereby I conclude there was no natural designer either...."The Principle of the Non-malleability of Nature".

Thanks flux for helping me with a point of view that seems allusive to me.

Just to make sure I understand

1. A supernatural designer could not exist because the natural laws would prevent this from happening (assuming that the creator is bound by its own laws)

> I guess that in this case the creator would have to be beyond our comprehension, existing outside of the laws that govern us.

>Or everything (by its own will? By chance?) became what it is today (without a creator)

2. A natural designer could not exist because scientific discovery has no evidence of such.
>sounds reasonable to me

3. (In the case of a natural designer) that if natural laws were malleable, humans would eventually be able to manipulate them.
>also sounds reasonable

I am assuming that when you say "natural" you mean within human scientific knowledge

Once again, thanks for your input
Mike

I found this suggestive of a double standard, hunter777:

You said: "Furthermore, one can detect behind it the usual rabid frothing hate of the Misotheist......along with the frantic search for some solid intellectual footing,......any half baked footing, even if its only anecdotal opinion,......."

So you are suggesting, here that some atheists are hateful, intolerant and angry. You implied this with about other posters here too. Maybe you are on a mission to encourage greater understanding and harmony?

Alas, no...

You then said: "But, I will tell you what they aren't......they're aren't mentally unstable and therefore wont be able to plead insanity when they come to Judgment."

Right... so that man is hateful to your religion, oh and he is going to hell (and must deserve it as you would never think God would send anyone where they do not deserve to go). Who is being hateful here?

Do you think non-believers go to hell? Do you think they deserve to go there? If so, it is hard to respect this view. It seems to be:

"Why do all these non-believers who are going to go and burn in hell forever, and who deserve to go and burn in hell forever, have to be so hateful? What have I done to upset them? Why do they have such a problem with my beliefs. Why can't people just respect each other's views and have an intelligent debate? Why can't all these people who deserve to burn in hell just get along with other people and respect the religion that says they deserve to burn in hell?"

Your response to this may be that you are right, and that non-believers do deserve to go to hell. Fine, but if you think that at least don't try to pretend that you have not come into a discussion like this with very extreme views about your opponents, and very extreme views about what should be done done to them, and that these views are implied by your belief even if you do not state them explicitly.

So far, eveything you have said, to me, has just been the usual theistic argument. You came in and said that atheists were assumptive because none of us could prove whether or not god exists. That is fairly pointless, given that if you have such high standards for "proof" you could say it about many things that I am sure you do not apply it to. The only reason you make an exception for God is that you take God seriously. There is no other reason for this appeal to open mindedness. You are trying to give the appearance that you are appealing for an open minded view in general, but all it amounts to is that you think the evidence for god is really good. It would be more honest to say that, rather than argue that some general "open mindedness" idea needs to be in effect here, when you are merely talking to people who dismiss your claim, as you will dismiss many other claims just as easily.

You get some disagreement from someone and try to project all kinds of ideas onto that person - as if there must be some personality defect in anyone who does not take your belief seriously or respect it - despite what your belief appears to say about such people. After that you are done with the "None of us can prove things" argument. You didn't come here to do that anyway: we are on to talks about God, Jesus and judgment.

Hunter777: "What do you think the "good" Dr. would prescribe for my Religious leanings? Hmmmmm.....lets see....Lithium??? Lobotomy??? Shock Therapy, or maybe just Euthenasia...??"

There is not the remotest suggestion that the author of that article advocates the killing of religious people.

However, from what many Christians say, we have a good idea of what Christians often say should be prescribed for anyone who has the temerity not to believe their claims - torture forever.

I will start with:
"2+2=4 is true whether you are in a good mood or bad, happy, angry or sad when you state it"
Yes, I agree with the absolute property of truth....that truth is truth whether you want it that way or not.
O.K. you say your not angry fine I'll accept that for the sake of discussion....however, it wasn't a "red herring". I really felt that is what it was. O.K. then, you have "pity" for me, why do you feel this? I mean, why feel "sorrow and compassion" for someones condition, is it just an evolutionary response to help propagate the species? Apart from being classified as an "emotion", what is compassion extrop??

"I got that phrase from Dawkins and that is a valid religious ritual somewhere in the world, according to him if my memory serves"

I'm glad to see your a free thinker.........the guru of all things misotheistic and evolutionary must be emulated....right? He would know, after all he's an expert with all the answers......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

THE JAMES PASSAGE Jas 5:14-15
Very good Extrop, at least now you are quoting Scripture. I see that you have picked up a little bit more latin than me, well done. However, to say to someone, that their whole "life" is "wrong" strikes me as an attack on "the man" not the "ball"....keep your eye on the ball extrop!!

Now to the passage in James:
Jas 5:14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
Jas 5:15 And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

I understand where you are coming from now, so lets logically work through this....

Scenario #1
Person gets sick, church elders pray but person gets even sicker and then dies.
No doubt this has happened inunumerable times, as there are Christians dying every day. So what are we to make of this outcome? Logically there are 3 possibilities:
1. God does not exist and the people praying are deluded and therefore not surprisingly, annointing someone with oil won't help, if they have appendicitis for example.
2.God does exist but he is not the God they think he is, but one of the other pagan gods, not the God of the Bible. Therefore they "got the wrong number" so to speak.
3.God does exist, He exists and He is the same God as revealed in Scripture, faithful and True to His Word. Because He is this God, Sovereign and un-impeacable, in His omniscience and goodness He has decided not to answer the request, but to allow the person to die. Now, if that person was a Christian, that is a very good thing because they have gone to their reward and rest, to be with God. This is not a bad thing, although the ones left behind do grieve because physical death is a horrible and unatural thing, which was not present in the original created order but intruded into this world because of mans fall into sin. You have probably heard all this before but, I am just putting forward the Biblical position. Its Biblical Theology you know.
So whats your point? That because you take an extremely narrow literal reading of this passage, then it proves God doesn't exist? Well let me say, that if that was the way it was understood in the early Church, I don't think the Church would have survived more than a couple of weeks. All reputable Bible scholars agree with my viewpoint that this passage indicates what will happen in many but not all cases. Many people would be prayed for and get better. Yes, maybe they would have got better anyway, but this doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.
Many God haters get also get sick and recover. This is testimony to the patience, longsuffering and mercy of God, who wishes that all men should come to a knowledge of the Truth.
If your interpretation of this passage is correct, and allowing for the existence of God, God would no longer be God, but would become bound to the wishes of men...He would no longer be Omnipotent, but the ones who pray would be. This conclusion clearly contradicts the broad testimony of Scripture, that God is soveriegn and not bound by anyone. I am merely applying a standard form of Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis, to interpret this passage. If you care to do the research you will see that Biblical Theology/hermeneutics/exegesis is a rigorous, well defined and self consistent process by which we may understand Scripture. It works, it makes sense.
The Apostles, including James would of course have understood this, these men were well versed in the Scriptures and would never have meant what your viewpoint is saying, as James would have been contradicting Scripture and as we all know...Scripture cannot be broken. He would not have done this, as he was a God fearing man.

Your interpretation is petulant and childish....why don't you stamp your feet as well...this would be just as effective.

Scenario #2
God answers the prayer, even if it is unspoken, for exactly the same reasons He didn't answer in Scenario #1 option #3, because of His Omniscience, Goodness and Mercy.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au:80/world/703983/hospital-angel-caught-on-came...

As for modern Medicine, are you ignorant extrop who was instrumental in establishing hospitals and modern medicine in western civilization as we know it? It was Christians, motivated by their love of God and man to extend "compassion" (there's that word again) to the sick and dying. Because Christians have a worldview that says the world is orderly and created by a God of order, they believed and still believe, it is amenable to study and disection. Through diligent perserverance and application of the scientific method, (yes the scientific method!) they began to developed medicine as we know it.
See for example Sir Joseph Lister (1827-1912) the father of modern surgery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lister,_1st_Baron_Lister

To say that Christians should go away and die, because they don't believe in Modern science, reveals a complete and abject mis-apprehension of history and the crucial role Chrstianity played in the development of western society and culture....

http://creation.com/scientists-of-the-past-who-believed-in-a-creator

Has it ever occurred to you extrop that God is allowing mankind to use their God given creativity and curiosity (after all we were created in His image) to search out and study His creation, in the Hope that we will find Him in it!! If Darwin knew a cell was not just some blob of protoplasm, but knew what we know today about the staggering complexity within a single cell, do you think he would have confidently espoused his "theory"?

As for your "challenge" question, I don't think an unfavourable result on a double blind statistical test for prayed for sick people would destroy my Faith. Because my Faith is not based on the result of some statistical test, but on the fact that the world that I already clearly see around me, the Creation, the way people are, the way they treat each other and the sickness suffering and death, all...all of it, jibes with, fits with, is consistent with, the Testimony of Scripture. It provides convincing reasons for why the world is the way it is. I find that it has the "ring" of Truth.

However to answer your question, when I die, if I wake up to find that God is Allah or one of the Hindu gods and not the God of the Bible: that would destroy my Faith. That is, as opposed to not waking up at all, in which case, ............there's nothing to destroy.

Now, let me answer, for you;
I think that you would be convinced, I'm sure, that your "rejection of theistic claims are in error", if when you die, and you most certainly will, (unless the Lord returns), if you wake to find yourself standing before the great throne of Judgement and Books are being opened to see if your name is written in them, then I'm sure you would agree with me that, yes, that would convince you.
Unfortunately for you, if thats what it takes, then it will be a little tooooooo late for you......whether you want it that way or not.

Hunter777

If a supernatural entity exists, then my assumption is that it is not bound by natural physical laws or logic (conservation of energy, momentum, linear momentum, and no such thing as entropy....also, all quantitative conservation doesn't apply either, no logical geometries, no numerical relations, nothing). In essense, the supernatural is magical because, if it were to interact with the natural world then it would be able to break all of the physical parameters that govern the physical world (after all, common belief among the world religions is that the supernatural somehow invented or created the natural via magical perpetual motion, in no specific time frame either due to being outside of spacetime).

Anyhow, at some point the supernatural is complete bullshit. There is no proof of anything like that existing, there are no eternal burning hellfires or eternal angels/gods in the fluffy clouds, I'm not buying it. The burden of proof for the supernatural lies entirely with those whom believe in the supernatural, not with the sane scientists that deal with natural things that are objectively testable with material instruments, conserved physical parameters, and quantifiable datas.

Paul,
If all you guys as firm atheists are correct, then everything I am saying about the Judgement of God (Not my judgement) is a fantasy....right?
So, what's the problem, just have a good ol' laugh at the loony religious nut and forget it...............if you can, that is.
Or maybe you might even be magnanimous enough to have "pity" for me like extropian58. But hate? No, not hate, that's not the emotion that should be engendered from someone who "knows" they are right....right?
Shouldn't be a problem, for people who are: "on to talks about God, Jesus and judgment".

Hunter777

Did I say I was worried? I just object to your views. I think they are unpleasant nonsense. It is not even a huge issue to me: someone who just made an objection to a claim I made about computing science is a greater issue.

However, it is also absurd to think that your view that I deserve to burn in hell won't play any part in any value judgment I form of you or your religion. As an example, suppose your wife died and you found out that your best friend thought it was hilarious. Would you be convinced by "why worry what he thinks" arguments? Of course not. I think that suggesting that people should be indifferent to what you think of them is just unrealistic and dishonest.

I object to it on the grounds that it is, practically, if not legally, slander. Your religion encourages people to think that I am somehow deserving of torture - that I am somehow morally or ethically compromised for not believing in it. I am sure you would object if negative views of you were propagated in many non-religious respects.

I also object based on the fear such views attempt to create in people. Children are routinely threatened with this nonsense. You yourself have tried it, here, with your warnings that it will be too late to change our minds when we are dead. If your case could be argued with greater integrity, you would be doing that instead of using appeals to fear. What do you even expect anyone to do when you say that? Start thinking that something that they think is nonsense is true because it now seems to be scary nonsense?

I am not saying I do actually hate you: I don't. However, what I am arguing against is you objecting to people not being tolerant. You are trying to have it both ways. You expect people not to worry when you say that they will go to hell, yet you expect those same people to have consideration for your feelings.

Why should you care about the views of the person who wrote that article? If you are so sure that God exists, why would you care if anyone has negative views of you or your religion? You might say you don't - however, you decided to point out that his views were, in your opinion, hateful. Why bother even saying that? Why worry? I made the comments about hell in response to your comments about that article.

Another problem, here, is that by saying "why worry?" you are implying that it takes some enormous effort to be pleasant to you. What if I am in a situation in which it takes more effort to be considerate to you. What if you wanted some help from me, and it would cost me to give that help? Why should I bother? Your "why worry?" question would be pointless then. It would actually be easier for me just to make a quick value decision and help someone who does not think I deserve eternal torture. Why should I not do that?

hunter777 said: "So, what's the problem, just have a good ol' laugh at the loony religious nut and forget it...............if you can, that is."

If religion did not have so much influence on politics, society, education and laws, that is exactly what I would be doing - if that. You want us to treat your religious views as though they are of no consequence in the world, when people like you do everything you can to make them of consequence.

Mike,
Why is the complexity of life evidence for a creator?

Life is complex, but we know how that complexity arises from nature's laws, Darwin figured that out 150 years ago. And it's been overwhelmingly verified by 150 years worth of research. And there is no evidence of any tweaking by an interfering god.

If you find it hard to see how complexity can arise by itself, read some of Richard Dawkins' excellent books. My favourite is The Blind Watchmaker - it's one of the best books I've ever read and one of the clearest explanations of how evolution works ever written. Climbing Mount Improbable is probably also very good, but I haven't read it. He writes better biology books than books about religion.

Even if the theory of evolution happened to be completely wrong, the complexity of life still would not be evidence for the existence of God. If you want to explain complexity, proposing something even more complex to explain the complexity does not help, especially when there is no evidence for its existence.

The big question is: Why is there something rather than nothing? God doesn't explain that either, because you then have to explain why God exists. I don' think even God could answer that question. I don't think there is any answer to that question and if there is, I doubt we could understand it. I can't even imagine what an answer might be like.

Regards,
Pythagoras

Damn, I'm too slow - the discussion seems to have moved on between when I typed this and when I hit the Post button.

Dear Paul,
Believe it or not, I do understand your indignation. But I do not set the standard of acceptance with God, He does.
All I want you to understand, is that I as a human person I may find shocking the concept of eternal separation from God and I will admit I have struggled with it in times past. But in the end, when all is said and done, I defer to Gods wisdom, goodness & judgement. Hell or Gehenna means the grave. I personally do not think that there are real roasting flames in hell, I think that language is part of the parables that Jesus told. It was meant to convey the very real sufferring and anguish that will be experienced by people, who having heard the Gospel, having been told that God is Holy, cannot tolerant sin, but that there's a rescue plan instituted by God Himself, because God is Love. Having heard all that, and after having a lifetime to receive it and submit to his good will for them, did not. It will be sufferring because they will get to see God, be in his presence, to know what is, the presence of the all loving Holy One, and then to be removed from His presence for eternity.

After all, God whose longsufferring is meant to lead you to repentance, will only forbear for so long and eventually He will give you what you seem to so ardently want....no part of Him.

I believe that all the good things that we experience in this world, in this life, originate from God. The gentle warmth of the sun, the love of family & friends, the beauty of creation, our creativity and beautiful music, all come via the common Graces that He bestows on Mankind and for which He receives in return ingratitude from faithless ungrateful wretches. So, when the Bible talks about being cast into Hell, it is talking about being cutoff for all Eternity from the source of all these good things, from Love itself. (1 John 4:8)
Why does God do things this way?...I honestly am not 100% sure. But because I believe He exists, due to His witness in Creation and the testimony of Scripture...how He sacrificed Himself to save us, I cannot help but be drawn to Him. I find the revealed God of the Bible winsome in the extreme. I wouldn't miss out on Him for the world. Therefore I am confident that all will be revealed to be in complete conformity with his good and perfect loving nature.

Hell will be conscious and eternal awareness that you have been deprived of all that is good, by your own free will choice in this life, to reject God.
I am not telling you these things, just for the sake of upsetting you, but so that you might repent and believe. I have an obligation before God to tell, to warn, so that I will be without blame, if you fail to turn. I will say: "I did tell you didn't I?" I will not have you say to me: "Why didn't you tell me?"

Your analogy of my Wife dying and my friend laughing is not equivalent, because my friend would know that my Wifes death was a FACT that was indisputable. And to laugh would be heartless and cruel in the extreme. Whereas, your eternal destiny is in dispute. As this Blog has made abundantly clear to all but the thickest skulls, it is not a provable fact one way or the other at this point in time. Therefore, if your firm conviction is, that when you die, its "lights out", sans everything, then REALLY, what are you getting worked up about? However, if I am right Paul, for me to shut up and say nothing would be cruel in the extreme, would it not?

Believe me, I don't think I will be laughing when the unsaved are consigned to perdition.

Please do not miss out........

Hunter777

Hunter777, you are trying to suggest that I should not have any negative view of you, just because you say I am going to hell for being an atheist. I was told by a christian, once, that this was just like blaming someone for saying I would die in a fire if I had no smoke alarm, and the analogy was absurd, because in that analogy nobody would be worshipping the fire, agreeing with the fire or saying that the fire is just. Saying that I would die in a fire might just be a claim about the world. Saying I deserve to die in a fire would be going further.

I will ask you some simple yes/no questions, then we can see where we stand:

1. Do you believe that atheists, who die as atheists, go to hell?
2. Do you believe that god would ever do something bad?
3. Do you think treating someone unfairly would be bad?
4. Do you believe that people who go to hell are just those who, in your opinion, deserve to to hell?
5. If I told you that you deserved to be tortured, in some non-religious context, would you be inclinded to show me any consideration, or respect for my views?
6. Do you think that if you tell me I deserve to be tortured in a non-religious context, it is a special case and you should be treated differently than anyone who would say it any other context?

Pythagoras, I think I am starting to understand your point of view.

To clarify your position (please correct me if I am getting it wrong):

1. The existence of complexity in the world does not indicate a more complex creator because this would lead to infinity of complexity. (Assuming a creator is bound by "natural laws")

2. Since we can't explain where god comes from or who created him, we should leave our "just is" conclusion for the observable world without taking any more steps (like saying god "just is")

I will check out Dawkings books, they seem quite popular on this website.

Hunter777 said: "...I do not set the standard of acceptance with God, He does."

This is a point which is, I think, at the center of the argument between theists and atheists. Theists believe that certain texts (the Bible, for instance) are the word of God—while atheists such as myself believe that all such texts were written by human beings alone. Regardless of the content of such books, I know of absolutely no evidence to confirm that they were written by anyone other than people. Some of the words they contain may be lofty and inspiring, but this is no evidence for divine authorship. Men and women have written equally inspiring texts for centuries, and continue to do so today.

It would be one thing if everyone agreed on a specific text as being the word of God, but this is not the case. Different people throughout the world believe that *different* texts contain God's words—and each group defends their belief emphatically—sometimes to the extent of causing their own death, or the death of others.

To believe that *any* book contains the word of God is, in my opinion, delusional. All were written by men and women to foster political and social agendas of their time—and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

To believe, as Hunter777 does, that God sets the standard of his own acceptance is, in effect, casting aside one's own right to freedom of choice. In agreeing to not think for one's self—in submitting to the will of other men who long ago set out to control the beliefs of others for their own selfish purposes—one is committing the ultimate sin: the sin of self-suppression.

mikedurland said: "1. The existence of complexity in the world does not indicate a more complex creator because this would lead to infinity of complexity. (Assuming a creator is bound by "natural laws")"

This is one problem with it, but the main problem with using a complex creator to explain complexity, rather than infinite regression, is that it just doesn't explain the complexity. It still leaves you with complexity. It is like using elephants to explain elephants.

mikedurland said: "2. Since we can't explain where god comes from or who created him, we should leave our "just is" conclusion for the observable world without taking any more steps (like saying god "just is")"

A lot of atheists would agree with that. We have to assume that something is there, and that there is some limit to our knowledge beyond that something anyway. Assuming the universe does not seem to leave you worse off than assuming a god -except we already know the universe is here as we live in it.

Hi Mike,
I think Paul answered your question for me. I don't think I could have said it any more clearly.

Regards,
Pythagoras

Paul,
Thank you for the logical clarification. It makes sense to me.

Answers follow:
1. Yes
2. I will let God answer for Himself:
Isa 45:5-7
"I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I gird you, though you do not know me, that men may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things."

3. Yes because being "unfair" means you are being unjust and God is just.

4. My opinion does not count Paul. As I said in my previous post and I am being quite frank about this, I have struggled with the clear teaching of Scripture that those who have not put there trust in Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour and sin substitute, will go to Hell. But because I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, I must be subject to His clear teaching. He is not unjust and in the final analysis will not be able to be found to have done any wrong.
Please think about it logically Paul, if I am wrong and God does not exist, then I am wrong and what I consider to be Gods teaching in Scripture is merely the rambling musings of men. However, if I am correct, then it's not my opinion that matters is it? Whose opinion would matter in that case? The answer would be of course Gods opinion, because He is the one "holding all the cards", with all the power. Therefore in that case, if I am right, you have 2 choices:
a. Sue for peace now while you have time, or
b. Defy Him to his face and be utterly destroyed. What other options are there in that case?
Now if you don't like that, I can't help you any further because its not up to me.

5. Probably not, primarily because you, like me are a mere man, with very fallible judgement and a warped sense of what is wrong and what is right.
6. No it should not be treated any differently because once again the dichotomy you are attempting to set up between the secular and the "religious" is ultimately a false one. There is no distinction, everyone who sins shall die, unless he has an acceptable substitute to die in his place. (Acceptable to God). So because there is no distinction, then there is only one standard by which to judge if someone is to suffer punishment and that is Gods standard ultimately.
You keep writing "tortured" and "if you tell me I deserve to be tortured". Paul, once again, I might say you deserve to be boiled in oil or drawn and quartered, but if I have no power what does it matter? I would just be some pion shooting his mouth off. Besides that, my judgement is fallible and affected by my still present sinful nature. I might be saying this out of hate, envy or pride.
But when, as I believe, the day will surely come, when you stand before God, all the "clever" arguments you thought would justify you to God will be put down and you will be disarmed morally speaking. Then to your Horror, you will realize too late, that not only does God have the unchallenged ability to carry out his sentence against you, but that He is justified in His assesment and you will find yourself agreeing with Him. Not only that, but you will realize that He went much further than justice demands in reaching out to you, by becoming a man and sacrificiing Himself in place of all those who would put their trust in Him......and even knowing this.....you turned it down.

Why does God do things this particular way?

Rom 11:32-36
For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.
O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
"For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"
"Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?"
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever. Amen

Hunter777