There you go again, seeing "the truth" in your old book. But billions

people of other faiths, like muslins and hindus, also possess "the
truth". This is where beliefs and religions collapse when confronted
with reality.

I see that you will conjure many assumptions in order to support your

Truth and reality coexist else it is not truth.

There's only one reality but many "truths". It does not matter what you
believe your "truth" is, reality will trump it. Life is complex.
Everybody builds his or her worldviews over time; it's normal. But what
emerges from that is a set of personal values, morals and ethics (or the
lack thereof), and these differ from person to person.

A religion is defined by a cause, principle, or activity pursued

zeal or conscientious devotion. Atheism has all of these.

Sure. So's a chess club or a political party. Redefining religion to

so large as to include any activity between two or more people is

very constructive.

It is not my definition. Your argument appears to be with Webster.

I'm not going to argue linguistics here. The word "religion", like

other words, has more than one meaning :
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Religion
When I talk about religion, I talk about the first definition. The
fourth one, which is like the quote you posted, is quite broad and can
very well include political parties or any other associations. At that
point, the debate becomes utterly meaningless.

No, the debate on this point is whether atheism can be called a

and according to the definitions you, yourself present, it can be.

Only fundies like you call atheism religion, because you know it gets on
our nerves. While it seems that some dictionaries define "religion" in
such a broad way as to include any kind of associations, groups
(including usenet newsgroups...) or assorted coteries, atheism is just
the lack of belief in god or gods.

Those dictionaries are quite right. Another definition for a religion is

club'. nothing but a gathering of a large group of like minded people.

should not be overlooked that we are, going back to our Stone Age

group hunters, and we have never lost the need to gather together.

a human group leader [or politician] represents the leader of the hunting

and whilst respected it is not always agreeable to follow his every ward.

the case of the imaginary goods this does not apply, we can make the gods

anything we need them to do, and of course, the leaders, be they early

nothing changes does it

There are texts in the Bible which are literal, and many that are

How

should one be defined that examines the Bible in accordance with

in

order to determine the difference?

You just pick and chose, don't you? Where's your guide to determine
which parts are literal from those who are not?

The reader must use discernment, however that does not mean he has a

hand. It is truth we are talking about and not mindless agenda.

Sure it is. It has been an agenda for hundreds of years. Take the parts
that suits you/the church/the governement and impose it on other people.
You yourself may be in for a personal quest, but religion has been used
for sinister purposes for a long time.

There are lots of novels which contain very accurate descriptions of
real people, cities, historical events, etc. Should I then believe

everything else in the novel be true? Of course not. The same process
applies to the bible.

If the novel presents a course of action which proves accurate and
beneficial, then tell me why you would have such reservations?

A few great novels provide insights into human behaviour that are
illuminating and inspiring. That does not mean that they hold some
"truth" or are to be believed in. The same goes for the bible.

The constant harping on 'the Truth' is a spin off from the large number of
inconsistencies in the bible. A bit like fooling oneself!

It is of vital importance
that what I discern from the Word, be based in accuracy and not on

human speculations or religious creeds. I feel like the apostle Paul

when he

expressed himself under inspiration: "Let God be found true, though

every

man be found a liar." (Romans 3:4, New World Translation)

That is an horrible thought. I'm pretty sure the Inquisition found it
inspiring.

Perhaps you have been holding the thought of your own supremacy for

long.

We all have supremacy over our own life.

Amusingly, hundreds of years have passed since these texts existed,

thousands of scholars, translators, exegetes, priests, historians,
archeologists, etc., have been dissecting, analysing, translating and
interpreting the bible, and nothing ever came out of it except sects,
wars, dissension, intolerance and other very nasty stuff.

I think you make a hasty conclusion here.

Of course not. Read history books.

Of course, *you* have "the truth". You must be quite the genius. If

the whole planet was listening to you...

I am not a genius, however I do pay attention.

You pay attention to what? You seem to ignore the complexity of the
world and its history. You may make the same mistakes that many
dictators, plutocrats, philosophers and other misguided idealists made :
trying to put everyone in the same mold. It does not work, and never

It is my personal faith, actually, as if must be for those who form a
relationship with him.

So it *is* all in your mind.

Mind, heart, body and spirit as it must be for all who pay attention

the idea and goal of reaching for the truth.

You're talking gibberish.

Believers all say that. Your "truth" is blasphemy to other creeds and
beliefs.

Believers all, do not have the desire or the ability to recognize the
accuracy and integrity of what is written for our benefit. So very

many are led by blind guides who wish nothing more than to fleece the

True, but you describe mostly xian sects. But what about muslims, hindus
or other people who believe the "truth" lies in their scriptures? They
think that you worship the wrong god. Some of them think that you're an
"infidel" and should be put to death. They think they hold the "truth",

I have asked this question so many times and have yet to get a

The "chasms" will be bridged by evidence and scientific experiments,

by "wisdom".

It is wisdom that recognizes and applies the evidence.

No, it's science. Wisdom is great for philosophical discussions, but
useless in describing the universe we live in.

Maybe. But as I said earlier, you seem like someone who likes to have
all the answers right now. You like to have certitudes.

All people desire certainty, however the facts are that we are limited

our ability to procure certainty, so we must proceed with our eyes as

toward the light of truth as we can.

That's the "god of the gaps" fallacy. It means that wherever science
does not have a 100% full-proof answer, it means that some god did it.
We've had electricity for a little more than a hundred years. Look into
the future, not the past.

the only electricity they could see before that was a flash of lightening

that was the anger of the gods!

I'm sure you are. You seem to have "bible glasses".

That could be, however before I knew much about the Bible, I knew more

the physical sciences.

What personal crisis lead you to ditch reality and embrace fantasy?

The bible is not "background". Nor is it knowledge, wisdom or is it

historically accurate. It represents the views of goat herders.

That is a very narrow vision.

Yes it is, isn't it? Imagine what a shepherd from that time would think
if his fireside stories would be held as "truth" by 21st century people?

The fact is that all the signs that point to the end have all

before. Those can be discerned and are known. What we see today, is
considerably different in that all those things are now occuring

together in

one generation.

I don't know what you're talking about. Please rephrase that.

In other words ...there are several "signs" that point to the end of

system of things that are referred to in the Word. All those

"signs" (earthquakes in unusual places, pestilence, famine, etc.)

happened, throughout history. This is the FIRST time all those

happened during the course of a single generation.

Of course not. "earthquakes in unusual places, pestilence, famine" have
been with us forever. While we can do something about famine, or even
pestilence, there's nothing to prevent earthquakes.

Correct with me if I'm wrong, but you just seem like someone who has
invested so much time reading the bible that you want, or wish, that
Armageddon or the apocalypse will happen during your lifetime. That
would justify your life and your beliefs. That is quite sad.

"Negra Modelo"? No, I don't. It seems spanish from what I can tell.

That is the "dark" beer, and it is good however the regular Modelo

better to me. I think it is bottled in Mexico, however it is an

premium beer.

I'll see if it's imported here, the minute they settle the strike!

I am suggesting that there is will behind the creation and that

one day be able to present that evidence.

But science will then enquire about who or what is behind that "Creator"
thing. Who created the Creator? (But don't fret about answering the
question. A lone "Creator" is illogical.)

But I guess that you'll never be satisfied with the science behind
evolution. There will never be enough fossils to satisfy you, the
datation techniques will never be accurate enough, and nothing will
satisfy you unless it's in concordance with your bible.

I know that there is adaptation and that scientists apply the name

to that fact. I do not see, any credible evidence that man evolved

lower animals. I do not think I am asking for so much, merely a clear

distinct record of that transformation, which I do not see now. To

faith in scientific plausibility and speculation does not seem a

block in my quest for truth.

Your quest, from what I can tell, is not so much about where you come
from, but where you're headed. You hope to live forever in the glorious
presence of some kind of god, while all evidence points toward total
oblivion.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer oblivion to a few trillion billions
years (and that's just for starters. I does not even begin to describe
eternity) of adoring some creepy god.

Believing in myths has been shown to be quite harmful to our

Myths yes, truth no.

Your "truth" is alien to the vast majority of people on this planet.

That may be, however I can not forsake the truth, until a greater

presents itself.

You just said that you don't believe in your "truth" (or have trouble
with it), because there's a possibility that a "greater truth" may

up. What do you have in mind?

I have no idea what that truth may present, however I do know that if

shows itself to be superior truth, to the foundation of truth I am

upon, then the old foundation will need to be rebuilt.

So to sum it up, you believe that you know the "truth", but if any kind
of any superior "truth" comes along, you'd switch.

That tells me that you have no confidence in what you hold for the
"truth", as it is to "change without further notice", so to speak.

You are a very confused person.

so often it stems form the teaching of the parents. common sense shows

religion is mythology, but they harp on about the truth rather than admit

parents were wrong.

Olrik wrote:

Smith Computer wrote:

There you go again, seeing "the truth" in your old book. But billions of
people of other faiths, like muslins and hindus, also possess "the
truth". This is where beliefs and religions collapse when confronted
with reality.

I see that you will conjure many assumptions in order to support your point.
Truth and reality coexist else it is not truth.

There's only one reality but many "truths". It does not matter what you
believe your "truth" is, reality will trump it. Life is complex.
Everybody builds his or her worldviews over time; it's normal. But what
emerges from that is a set of personal values, morals and ethics (or the
lack thereof), and these differ from person to person.

A religion is defined by a cause, principle, or activity pursued with

zeal

or conscientious devotion. Atheism has all of these.

Sure. So's a chess club or a political party. Redefining religion to be
so large as to include any activity between two or more people is not
very constructive.

It is not my definition. Your argument appears to be with Webster.

I'm not going to argue linguistics here. The word "religion", like many
other words, has more than one meaning :

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Religion

When I talk about religion, I talk about the first definition. The
fourth one, which is like the quote you posted, is quite broad and can
very well include political parties or any other associations. At that
point, the debate becomes utterly meaningless.

No, the debate on this point is whether atheism can be called a religion,
and according to the definitions you, yourself present, it can be.

Only fundies like you call atheism religion, because you know it gets on
our nerves. While it seems that some dictionaries define "religion" in
such a broad way as to include any kind of associations, groups
(including usenet newsgroups...) or assorted coteries, atheism is just
the lack of belief in god or gods.

Those dictionaries are quite right. Another definition for a religion is 'a
club'. nothing but a gathering of a large group of like minded people. the fact
should not be overlooked that we are, going back to our Stone Age ancestors,
group hunters, and we have never lost the need to gather together.

a human group leader [or politician] represents the leader of the hunting pack
and whilst respected it is not always agreeable to follow his every ward. But in
the case of the imaginary goods this does not apply, we can make the gods do
anything we need them to do, and of course, the leaders, be they early stone age
leaders or politicians of today, some will gladly take an imaginary god on board
if it helps keep his populace in line.

nothing changes does it

There are texts in the Bible which are literal, and many that are not.

How

should one be defined that examines the Bible in accordance with reality

in

order to determine the difference?

You just pick and chose, don't you? Where's your guide to determine
which parts are literal from those who are not?

The reader must use discernment, however that does not mean he has a free
hand. It is truth we are talking about and not mindless agenda.

Sure it is. It has been an agenda for hundreds of years. Take the parts
that suits you/the church/the governement and impose it on other people.
You yourself may be in for a personal quest, but religion has been used
for sinister purposes for a long time.

There are lots of novels which contain very accurate descriptions of
real people, cities, historical events, etc. Should I then believe that
everything else in the novel be true? Of course not. The same process
applies to the bible.

If the novel presents a course of action which proves accurate and
beneficial, then tell me why you would have such reservations?

A few great novels provide insights into human behaviour that are
illuminating and inspiring. That does not mean that they hold some
"truth" or are to be believed in. The same goes for the bible.

The constant harping on 'the Truth' is a spin off from the large number of
inconsistencies in the bible. A bit like fooling oneself!

It is of vital importance
that what I discern from the Word, be based in accuracy and not on mere
human speculations or religious creeds. I feel like the apostle Paul

when he

expressed himself under inspiration: "Let God be found true, though

every

man be found a liar." (Romans 3:4, New World Translation)

That is an horrible thought. I'm pretty sure the Inquisition found it
inspiring.

Perhaps you have been holding the thought of your own supremacy for far too
long.

We all have supremacy over our own life.

Amusingly, hundreds of years have passed since these texts existed, and
thousands of scholars, translators, exegetes, priests, historians,
archeologists, etc., have been dissecting, analysing, translating and
interpreting the bible, and nothing ever came out of it except sects,
wars, dissension, intolerance and other very nasty stuff.

I think you make a hasty conclusion here.

Of course not. Read history books.

Of course, *you* have "the truth". You must be quite the genius. If only
the whole planet was listening to you...

I am not a genius, however I do pay attention.

You pay attention to what? You seem to ignore the complexity of the
world and its history. You may make the same mistakes that many
dictators, plutocrats, philosophers and other misguided idealists made :
trying to put everyone in the same mold. It does not work, and never will.

It is my personal faith, actually, as if must be for those who form a
relationship with him.

So it *is* all in your mind.

Mind, heart, body and spirit as it must be for all who pay attention with
the idea and goal of reaching for the truth.

You're talking gibberish.

Believers