Choosing a faith

What precisely is this vile? What emotions is it composed of? Be more specific

You're speaking of the qualities of people. I was speaking of the inherent difficulty in changing people for the better.For example, say we wanted to improve your ability to resist being bamboozled, or convince you that the gold standard is completely impractical. So far no amount of information and persuasion have worked.Or say we wanted to convince someone that raging on the Internet about the dangers of vaccination is a bad thing. Has anyone ever done that?Or say we wanted to convince someone that accusing the Democrats of stealing the 2020 election and asserting that elections are rigged is a bad thing. Does that ever happen?Or say we wanted to convince someone that more guns mean more killings. Is that even possible?Or say we wanted to convince a group that taking up arms against the government is a bad thing. Where has that ever worked?Or say we wanted to convince missionaries that converting people of other religions and cultures to Christianity is a bad thing. How likely would that be?Or say we wanted to convince politicians that using religion to convince poor people to be satisfied with their lot so that they'd be less likely to engage in armed insurrection against a government uncaring of their suffering is a bad thing. Would that be possible?Or say we wanted to convince evangelicals that sex education is a more effective method of reducing teenage pregnancies than "teaching young people the Bible's full picture of intimacy will help to keep them celibate (Cameron Cole)". Would you bet on that one?Or say we wanted to convince people that those trying to illegally enter our country are not drug-addled, covid-ridden criminals and sex offenders but are desperate and fled danger and/or poverty and deserve our help. How would we do that?Or say we wanted to convince people that giving money to the rich is not an effective approach to helping the poor. Is that ever going to happen?--Percy

read the comment I was responding to.I have no idea what the emotions question is even referring to.

Absolutely not. I bet everyone here would respond with the exact same words because it's been said so many, many times: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And we actually do believe the things that we say. Stile was speaking of the scientific method, of course. It is the most reliable and effective method of adding to our knowledge that we know of. It has so far yielded no evidence (validated evidence, if you prefer) of the supernatural. So you acknowledge that prayer has no effect? Yet another example of missing evidence for God that you'd think would be there if he were an actual thing. So for you something is true until proven otherwise. Shouldn't it be the other way around, that something is true only when proven, or more scientifically, is only considered true to a degree commensurate with the evidence? You are lying to yourself. You are using a method that will only yield the conclusions that you want, not the conclusions that are true. You aren't interested in the truth, only in confirming that which you already believe without evidence. Of course we have. You're using the methods of the flim-flam men, and we're using the scientific method. By your own admission your God has no real world effect, while science's impact on the world, whether for good or ill, is immeasurable. You are, in effect, asserting yet again that intelligence cannot arise naturally but could only come about by supernatural means. There's no evidence for this whatsoever.Your ability to restate your premise multiple times in a multiplicity of ways does not make it any less invalid. You're making the same claim again in yet a different way. Where is your evidence that complexity (which isn't subjective but is difficult to quantify, although using entropy as a stand-in for complexity might work) and beauty (definitely subjective) require the supernatural? Yes, this is true, investigating how the real world works says nothing about baseless propositions. It might be sentient but it wouldn't be life unless you change the definition.And of course it might reach those conclusions. And it's conclusions would only be as good as the available evidence. If all evidence of its origins has disappeared then the likelihood of it reaching valid conclusions would be small. And if it was truly sentient and rational then it would realize it had insufficient evidence, unlike yourself who merely declares something evidence if it supports what he already believes.But lack of evidence is not the case today. We have copious evidence going back 13.7 billion years. There's no sign of a cosmic intelligence anywhere.But you don't care whether your conclusions have evidence. That's why your conclusions are as likely to be wrong as those of your far-future AI being where all evidence of its origins has been lost.By the way, the far-future AI being would have enough information to know it couldn't have arisen naturally. It would observe that organic molecules like amino acids, the building blocks of life, form naturally all the time, but not microcircuits. It would conclude it likely that life formed naturally and then constructed artificial intelligences.--Percy

Is putting words in people's mouths dishonest? You said "love sacrificially" without elaboration, but even you can't deny that it sounds pretty dramatic. You can't post-facto claim that "love sacrificially" only means helping people, plus that's absurd anyway. Who out there even among the most deluded devout thinks "I'm loving sacrificially" when they give the street beggar a ten?If you were making valid points then you wouldn't continually be tempted into making dishonest statements like that. What Tangle originally said was this: Why don't you answer the question he asked.--Percy

Oh Brother! OK...
Lets go back. Which led to you saying: Still confusing. So I went back further. So again, my question.I am responding to your comment: So who is "him"? GDR? The hypothetical homeless person? The hypothetical checkout person? Im trying to figure out who *you* think is "spewing vile". Sounds like your little antichrist demon mouthing off.

That sort of response is too often typical of the responses around here. You are the host and moderator of this site. Pretty pathetic. Once again insult and put down masquerading as an argument.I was asked a question and answered with what I believe which is pretty consistent with most Christians. Do you want to keep this as a forum for anti-theists only, or do you want it to include the views of those who don't agree with your anti-theist beliefs?

Wash, rinse, repeat

Tangle was responding to GDR. Thus my comment was in reference to what GDR said.

It was a disgrace. I would question the good intentions though. The objective was to resolve a political problem and assimilation was the easiest way to do it. Our church borders on First Nations land and has done a lot of work towards reconciliation as very distinct from assimilation. Every service we have starts with the acknowledgement for we are on the ancestral lands of the specific first nations bands.[qs=You want to demonstrate your love of your fellow man? How about a mission to a poor Islamic community where there's no hint, not ever, that the help comes from Christian charities. And you work for years and decades to build and strengthen this Islamic community with selfless disregard for how its success compares to Christian communities.[/qs] Our church worked to sponsor 2 Islamic families as refugees and supported them with housing and food and helped them find work. They are doing well.One thing that happened was that we had a wine fest to help fund 3 local charities of which none were Christian based. At this wine fest a couple of the Islamic teenagers came over to help set things up. They got talking to a lady working who was very friendly and who asked them where they had come from which was Syria. She expressed remorse for the pain that they and their country had and still was going through. The Islamic teenagers asked about her background only to find out that she was Jewish. They were startled as they hadn't met a Jewish person before and they did not anticipate her being so kind to them. When they went home they told their father about the occurrence and he in turned called the church to ask for her phone number so that he could invite this Jewish woman to their home for dinner, which happened.The church, with exceptions I agree, is about bringing people of all beliefs together around the message of love your neighbour which can be found in at least all the major religions and also the the non-religious communities.If you read my signature you can see that there is no mention of belief in any specific doctrine but is all about humble kindness and mercy.

The consensus is formed because of the call on all humanity.

There are individuals who would look down on the sales clerk as a lessor being and as someone simply waiting on them. It is about not being prideful and not treating others as inferior beings. It is anything but narcissistic.

But the motivation goes deeper than that. You do so to keep on the right side of your god, to ensure he punches your ticket to paradise. Narcissistic.Now, giving the same smile just out of humanist habit is a considerably different display of motivation.

Ya, but you don't do it. You give the argument that you can find no evidence of a deity so therefore one doesn't exist. In general I remain unconvinced that God reaches out physically on an ongoing basis. I've heard the stories but I remain personally sceptical. However I do believe that God touches human hearts and minds and guides people to comfort or maybe even to heal people who are suffering with cancer or with other issues. You mean like the atheists on this forum who reject the idea of an outside intelligence but would change their views if they could be see solid scientific evidence of such a deity. I am very interested in the truth. I have essentially come to base my life on it. Incidentally that is just as true for anyone who rejects a deity. And that is what it seems that materialists do. If it can't be measured scientifically, it can't exist. If I feel led to help someone who needs it are you going to be able to measure that scientifically. I am not saying that God has no real world effect. I am saying that He works through the hearts and minds of humans and I would argue for in some degree in animal life as well. I'm simply saying that all of the complex processes that were required for life to evolve the way it has clearly requires a mind. The idea that it could by aw chance happen at every level of the myriad of processes, requires a leap of faith beyond anything I can muster. Of course there will always be those with sufficient hubris that they are unable to fathom a mind that much greater than their own. There you go again using lack of evidence as evidence. What about time prior to 13.7 billion years?

It isn't dramatic and it isn't hard. It is simply about giving of our own time, money or even pride in order to benefit some else. Yes you example would fall into that category. He asked the question of why bother with God if we can all do the loving thing anyway. I simply answered the question he asked. Another answer would be because I know myself and my Christian faith has led me to be a more decent person than I was before which does not make me more decent than my atheistic neighbour. Also i have found that I can do things, such as working for refugees that l that I can't do on my own outside of church.