Puzzle Description Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

#1: Adam Nielson (monkey) on Sep 2, 2008

How sad for you

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Yes

too true M2.

What would be the point?

right, as one can't prove a negative

amen dogmom

Hey folks - our local Unitarian pastor's a self-identified Atheist. He's an extremely moral and respected man, who has done a great deal of good for our community. He believes in doing everything he can to make this a better world in the here and now - because this is (in his mind) the only world he has, and the only life he has. So he's got to make the most of it and leave behind the best legacy he can.

He's the reason why I'd rather have an honest well-meaning Atheist on my side, than someone who says they believe in God but then goes around hurting other people.

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Why is a pastor an atheist? Oxymoron if I ever heard one.
Besides, all things denote there is a God; even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, and its motion, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. That should be enough proof. No way science just "happened to align every last detail" into life as we know it. Impossible. No way, no how.

I am glad this atheist pastor is a good person. And yes, there are plenty of "bad" people who believe on God. I am not arguing with you on that. Only stating my point that there is God.

I agree with Adam, everything denotes that there is a God. The more I learn (about science and other subjects), the more I believe in God.
But I agree, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs Naomi.
I'm glad the "pastor" does all he can to make the world a better place. That truly is what it's all about, no matter what you believe religiously.

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

I don't think it was meant to be patronizing. Please don't take it that way. We were just stating our opinions that to not believe, would to us, be sad.

I understand and respect your opinion. I still think it is "sad" if someone doesn't believe in God. That's all. Amen Telly.

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

I'm glad we all agree that everyone's entitled to their own beliefs. :-) There's no oxymoron where the pastor's beliefs are concerned - he's a Unitarian.

Respect for others and the right to individual conscience are fundamental to the religion. Most Unitarians are Judeo-Christian in their beliefs, but not all.

Pastor means Teacher/Leader of a flock

Right, but isn't it implied "religious" though? Apparently not.

A pastor is a teacher. A Unitarian pastor has a moral and ethical obligation to lead his group into moral and ethical lifestyles. S/He has absolutely no obligation to preach to believers in an all powerful, omniscient diety that is completely and totally impossible to "prove" the existence of. Religion is about FAITH not proof. If you could prove it, it would be science, not religion. If a person believed in something or someone only because someone had proven it to them, that would be tantamount to having NO FAITH! Most believers that I know would be offended by that.

Regarding Athiests Day, I'm definitely in favor of it!

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Hmmm, if you say so. I am not into non-imaginary non-kids and stuff like that. I know you are just trying to make a point.

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

A belief in the absence of God. Hmmm, ok. I will give you that.

Very nice puzzle!

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

No Gypso, it just means He gave free agency to all of His children, who are free to choose to disregard Him if they choose.

:-)

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Amen Naneki. :)

I used to feel that way Adam, and that's a big part of what made me so miserable. It was so presumptuous of me to believe I knew who was going to hell. None of us know for a fact what happens when we die. We may have faith, but we can't possibly know until it happens.

I didn't say I knew the future. No one on earth does, just like you said. I am just saying we will all know what happens when we all finally die. Either nothing, or judgment of good vs evil, etc. I am sorry you were so miserable before. It all comes down to faith, and some choose to have it, while others don't.

I would like to answer you Jan. As to how to distiguish a true prophet one might choose to look at their track record and perhaps I might share with you a bit of science: http://www.khouse.org/6640_cat/biblestudy/genesis/


Choice: a God given right that no man can ever truly take away from another.

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

WOW. I would truly like to thank you for taking the time to check that out and even write such a detailed review. I am certainly not qualified to discuss the intricacies of science with you. I simply hoped to share something that I find interesting. Again, thank you.

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Thanks for your opinion. I really feel sorry for you.

I don't appreciate someone calling my belief's childish or archaic. Belief in a supreme being gives me hope that this life isn't pointless. Let me celebrate my beliefs and I'll let you enjoy yours but please don't belittle me.

I read this forum twice already and never comment yet. Why?

because personnal believe is a personnal matter and they're no final answer here. I think that Jan should block and archive this forum since in the end only bad temper can result such discution

I agree qwerty. :)

hey Telly where your Todd????

Well said, Telly. It just seems sad to me that some people don't have hope in anything.

In high school some stranger kid once came up to me to talk about God. I told him politely that I wasn't a Christian. And he said "then you must be the devil" and walked away. This kind of thinking, that there are people who think as I do and everything else is the abyss, is what makes me sad.

I have known a few Christians who were people of high generosity and kindness and who drew the strength to be good people from their faith. Because of them, I will never disrespect the fundamental power and goodness of the Christian faith. However I have also known people like that who hold may other faiths, including atheism. Maybe not all these paths lead to heaven, but I hope they all lead somewhere good because there seem to be exemplary people on all paths.

I'm also not fond of the idea that religion discussions should be censored as if they were pornographic. If you can manage to be respectful of other people's faiths, then I think these are immensely interesting and useful discussions. A lot more than discord can come out of them. There are, for example, few better ways to understand your own faith better than to explain it to someone else.

I agree about not censoring, Jan (and much of the rest of what you've said). Several of the comments in this thread have really bristled me, but several of them have made me smile as well. I love philosophical conversations and even debate... as long as we can remember to be respectful of one another.

Ah, America is a beautiful place. The freedom to believe in one's religion without fear of prosecution by the people and/or government. The freedom not to have a religion without fear of retribution by the people and/or government.

That reminds me of something I sometimes wonder about. We Americans make a huge deal about the separation of church and state. Yet look at England. They have an official state religion, and somehow manage not to persecute religious minorities any more than Americans do, possibly less. We Americans are always big on espousing all these lofty principles, but I sometimes wonder how much difference they really make. People can be just as decent, and a lot less tiresome, without the moral pontificating.

Let all turn our fate to the FORCE like we can see some freak do in England I think ( check youtube)

Are you talking about the Jedi "church" where the crazy guy dressed up like Darth Vader? If so, that was very funny!

Adam #42, As do I for you, for continuing to believe the dribble.

Jane #43, And it's my lack of belief in a fictional supreme being that makes ME know life isn't pointless. We all take comfort in our own beliefs, or lack thereof. If you take offense at someone belittling your belief, try to imagine how it feels for an atheist to open this dialogue and be immediately bombarded by comments of "how sorry" or "how sad for you." At least one of those comments was yours and was just as belittling of my beliefs as you accuse mine of being of yours. Sorry, but you don't get it both ways. You reap what you sow.

Adam again #47, "It just seems sad to me that some people don't have hope in anything." Perfectly valid opinion, but making it a blanket statement about atheists is way out of line, and shows your ignorance of our beliefs.

Jan #51, We make a big deal about separation of church and state because it's enshrined in the Constitution, despite the demagoguing of the irrational right that wants us to believe it isn't. Religion has flourished in this country BECAUSE of the separation.

As far as America not persecuting religious minorities, I believe you'll find many Muslims and Wiccans who would strongly disagree with that broad statement. And, of course, so will many atheists, as some of the comments here aptly demonstrate. (BTW, before anyone pounces on me, "persecution" is a subjective term, and I'm using it liberally here to make my point.)

Still, though, I find your comments more thought provoking than most others.

So what is the point of this life? Why are we all here on earth, then? That is why I feel sorry for you. Do you have hope in ANYTHING? If you don't believe in God, then life is pointless, since we should all be striving to make good choices in this life. If you don't believe in any life after death, heaven/hell or anything like that(however anyone wants to define it) then why be good? Why do the right thing? Why even live?

Essentially, then, how did man come to be? How did earth come to be? Are you an evolutionist? Big Bang advocate? If I truly am ignorant of your beliefs, then tell me...What DO you believe then? It is unfathomable that we all just "happened to be here," with such complex intricacies and immeasurable detail that make up what is a human being.

How can you honestly believe that God DIDN'T create all of this? I will refer to my previous comments in #10. There is no other explanation adequate enough to explain it.

Look, I am not going to belittle or demean your beliefs, and you do respect mine as well, agreed? I am just trying to understand what you (or any "atheist") believe or how you justify the existence of man. I have a reason and have explained my point of view, but I would love to hear yours.

One final thought, and it is very simple to understand, but with potentially dramatic and eternal consequences...

Assume I am wrong, and there is no God. Let's assume life is just a few years to spend doing whatever we want, with no thought for the morrow. Get as much pleasure doing whatever we want. There is no life after death, no heaven/hell, no judgment. We die and that's it. Ok, I have lived happy on earth, trying to do what's right, I had a hope in something eternal as a reward for my actions. But I died, I cease to exist, nothing happens, and that's it. Nothing to lose for me having believed in God and had faith. Fair enough?

But just assume for a minute that I am right, and there IS a God. That we WILL be judged for our actions, for our faith (or lack thereof) and that there IS a heaven and hell, or some form of eternal life after death. That God IS watching all we do here on earth, and we just ignore Him. We deny His existence. We don't go to any church. We don't pray. We don't study the scriptures. We don't care about eternal consequences (rewards or punishments). We just live for now, and do whatever we want (within the limits of legality, of course). When we die and are judged of all of our actions by God, and given our recompense (good or bad) guess what? Guess where any of the people who live as I just mentioned will go? Guess what will happen to them? There will be a moment of perfect clarity when he have a complete understanding of our reason for earthly life, and an impending overload of guilt and realization. And the sad thing is it will be too late. We had our chance while here on earth.

Most of us are completely rational, sane individuals. We have free agency to choose whatever we want to believe. No one forces us to believe a certain way. But one of us is wrong. There is no way around it.

My closing words are these... WHY TAKE THE CHANCE that you are the one who is wrong? If I am the one who is wrong, no harm done by my beliefs. If you are wrong, well, need I say more?

I don't believe that there is anyone in the world who is an "evolutionist" or whom believes in "evolutionism". Those are words made up by critics of evolutionary theory. What I believe is in science, which happens to imply, among other things, evolution. The whole idea that being an "evolutionist" is something separate from believing in the fundamental principles of science is part of creationist propaganda.

Oops. Need to go feed some children. More later.

Adam, your questions are the standard textbook variety asked by people who've had the Bible and their religion hammered into them all their lives, but who never showed the initiative to actually examine their beliefs. As such, they're grounded in absolute ignorance not only of my beliefs, but of your own.

First off, you presume human life had to have been created for a reason. You can't begin to imagine that it was all a big cosmic coincidence. Over an indefinable period ("year" having no meaning in cosmic terms), events came together to create a planet that could sustain life as we know it. The earliest forms came into being, also through cosmic coincidence, and evolution took it from there. Yes, I absolutely do believe in evolution and the planetary origins as I described, as there's a massive and overwhelming body of evidence to support it. What do you have to support your theory? One book of stories, written by humans, and rewritten numerous times to fit the political climate of the time. In other words, nothing.

Your question in #10 was already answered in part by Naomi in #12. You find it impossible to believe that life as we know it, a life perfectly suited to our planet, just happened by coincidence. In your mind, the planet and the life upon it were wholly separate creations and that the "perfect fit" had to have been because of god. I don't know if that's arrogance or just plain ignorance, but it's a foolish belief either way. As Naomi already told you, there's no "rule" that we had to evolve the way we did. If the planet had formed differently, we would have evolved differently to live upon it. We might have evolved as intelligent methane breathing lizards, and right now you'd be trying to argue the implausibility of intelligent hairy bipedal homo sapiens that walk upright.

On morality, you make the standard ignorant assumption that it requires belief in a supreme being. What childish nonsense. Morality has been ingrained in us since the dawn of man when we began to learn that coexistence was to everyone's mutual advantage. Religious people behave morally in the promise of a reward in the afterlife you can only hope actually exists. Without that hope, and a book of arbitrary rules defining morality for you, you wouldn't know how to behave. Atheists behave morally because we know within ourselves what behaviors will best assure not only our coexistence, but the happiest and most beneficial coexistence possible. We don't need a written rule book.

I'm not claiming atheists are better than religious people. Both have had examples that run the gamut from savior to tyrant. My point is that morality doesn't require belief in god, a delusion you cling to. However, it's worth noting that in the history of mankind, the worst atrocities have almost always been committed in the name of god, and a very large number of them in the name of Christianity.

On your final very long winded question about an afterlife, I can keep this brief. If I'm wrong, and there is a god and an afterlife, and we've both lived good lives, acting morally toward others, each for own reasons as described above, do you honestly believe I'll be denied entry into heaven because I didn't believe in god and praise him every day? Is your god so arrogant and insecure that failure to worship him is grounds for denial of entry, regardless of my goods works while living? Is that really how a self-described all-loving, all-forgiving god would act? If so, I'd welcome being turned away. Better that than enduring eternity under the dominion of such a pompous ass.

That's quite enough of a reply, already much more than I intended to write. I have little desire to continue. Reason and skepticism are foreign concepts to you and I won't be swayed by your delusions. I can safely say that because I was raised as a Christian, but gained the maturity to question my beliefs, so have now seen and lived both sides.

In closing (#1), in the few responses to my original post (my first ever to a PBN puzzle, and I love that these dialogues are possible. Thanks Jan.), no one has commented on or refuted my description of the Bible as one of the most horrific books ever written. If those themes had been in any other book, Sarah Palin would have yanked it off the library shelves years ago. But it's the Bible, so it's all okay. Unbelievable, yet all too believable, religious hypocrisy!!

In closing (#2), I don't want to continue this too much further. It's not that I don't enjoy a good debate about religion, but our main purpose here is to enjoy these fun puzzles, and the time spent on these comments is time not spent solving them.

I will say one thing, "Tom." You just damned yourself to hell, by calling God a "pompous ass." You are a complete IDIOT. I have tried to be patient with you, and be gentlemanly about it, but you have continued to pound away at our beliefs. Screw you. You are a complete MORON. I despise you, and wish with all haste that you die as soon as possible and find out for yourself what a DELUDED and MORONIC life you live. I can't wait for the day when you see this is true. The best part will be when you remember this conversation, and start to cry and feel remorse, but have nothing to do about it. I will look down at you from heaven and laugh at you, while you will drink the foul discharge that drains down on you from our heavenly toilets. Do you really believe you are right? And that 90+% percent of the world is wrong? I am sorry God wasted his energy creating you.

I too find what Tom has said offensive. He continues to belittle my beliefs, call them childish, etc. and talk down to me as if I am some ignorant moron who hasn't heard his arguements before, studied out in my mind my beliefs and, after much thought made the decision I feel is right and true. You truly don't understand God or the Bible to misinterpret them so badly. Please don't talk about my Lord that way. It hurts me.
That being said, I don't agree with Adam's last statement either. It's also offensive. I understand that he's also angry for being treated as if his beliefs make him an imbecile. But he shouldn't have lashed out that way.

I would simply like to say that I believe that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, that not one is righteous in the sight of God but that salvation is given as a free gift, not based on our works so that no one would be able to boast. I honestly believe that heaven and hell exist and that every person is headed for hell until they of their own freewill choose to accept forgiveness for their sins through the price paid by Jesus. We are all given the free choice to choose if we believe this or not. I have made my choice as well as many others.

I have no wish to belittle anyone. Each of us believe numerous lies that have been given to us by those around us. Not one of us can reasonably say that 100% of our beliefs are truth.

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

Adam #58, Your asinine response is all the evidence I need that mine is the more mature belief system. You despise me because I don't share your religious beliefs, yet I DON'T hate you for not sharing mine. What a fine example of a Christian you are. You've proven beyond any doubt that you're a religious hypocrite, uneducated about your own religion, much less about atheism, and incapable of intelligent dialogue. I really have no further use for you or the limited entertainment you provide.

Jane #59, As I already said to you in #54, you belittled my beliefs right from the start, though absolutely NOT with the venom, hatred and immaturity of Adam's posts. By doing so, you gave up any right to not have it directed right back at you. However, your comments have been relatively calm in comparison to Adam's nonsense, which is why my responses have been directed almost solely at him.

General comment here, directed at no one in particular. Unlike Adam, I respect that other people have different beliefs. I may find them childish and delusional, but if they're not thrown in my face, I have no issue with them. There have been a number of religious puzzles here on PBN. While I've been personally nauseated by some of them, I've had no reason to comment, as doing so would be disrespectful and unnecessarily argumentative. But one puzzle that acknowledges atheism and out comes the "Christian" hatred, pity and scorn. My initial post was in response to that. You don't like my comments? Too bad. I didn't start it.

To all the others who initially displayed an intolerance, or at least disagreement, with atheism, but didn't respond to my first comment, thank you. I hope I'm right that each of you recognized that we each have and are entitled to our own beliefs. We each made our point without personalizing them (my opening #41 was generic) and now agree to respectfully disagree. Adam should take a lesson from you.

Finally, Adam, my name isn't "Tom". It's Tom. I'm not hiding behind a false name. Are you?

Oops, late edit here. Bionerd #61, thank you for being a voice of reason and tolerance. Adam? Are you paying attention?

Tom's response was not phrased with great sensitivity toward the feelings of others, but he did not exactly call God a "pompous ass".

In a discussion between people of different religions, you have to remember that not everyone who says "God" is talking about your God. They may be talking the God they believe in, or the God they think someone else (not necessarily you) believes in. Even among Christians, the range of beliefs about God is very wide.

Tom was presenting a specific argument against the people who claim that (1) there is an afterlife and (2) only members of a particular faith can get in, regardless of how virtuous their lives on Earth are. Tom states that if God is willing to damn a Jew who lived a live of virtue and charity to eternal punishment just because he never accepted Jesus into his heart, then Tom would regard this God as a pompous ass, and would prefer to spend eternity in hell with the good Jew than under a dominion of a God who judges people solely on how low they bow to him.

If you believe that God rewards only faith, not good works, then Tom was calling your God a pompous ass. If that's not what you believe, then he wasn't talking to you or about your God, and there is no particular reason you should take offense.

Tom also talked about Gods who would let anyone who lived a good and moral life into heaven. He knows some people believe in such Gods. But he feels that if that were the case, then his attention should be focused on living a good and moral life and not worrying about God.

Of course, Adam said that calling God names is sufficient in and of itself to cause God to condemn Tom to eternal punishment, so maybe the God Adam believes in IS a rather vindictive fellow. If so, I wonder how you reconcile that with the idea that God is the source of morality.

I think evolution is the source of morality. People hear about the "survival of the fittest" thing and think that evolution is a battle, in which the strong survive and the weak are destroyed. It hardly seems moral.

But that's a simplistic understanding of evolution. The winners in the evolutionary process are not the strongest, but the ones best fitted to their environment. And what is their environment? Rocks and volcanos? Partly, but mostly an animal's environment is other living things. A bird eats other living things, and escapes other living things that want to eat it. It builds it's nests in trees (living things) out of bits of still other living things. It breaths and flies through air made by other living things. So, the secret of evolutionary success is living well with other living things, and that is the root of morality.

So suppose there is one kind of ape-man who lives alone and attacks everything he sees, and another kind who is inclined to share with other ape men. The one who cooperates is likely to have more success in living, reproducing and raising his young. He's got to learn to share, to treat others with reasonable respect, to help out others when they need help. The better he gets at this, the better his chance of survival and his children's chance of survival. After a few million generations, the impulse toward moral behavior is going to be in his genes.

It's going to be an odd morality in some ways. His belief in the sanctity of life is full of exceptions. He will believe it is wrong to kill a dog (who is a help to him while the dog is living) but perfectly fine to kill a rooster (who is mostly only useful dead). He won't mind murdering a stalk of corn in order to eat it, but he'd be offended by someone destroying it before it was ripe, or eating the corn that was being saved to plant next spring. It's a mixed up morality, but a very practical one. More the sort of thing that would evolve in the world than that would be handed down by angels.

So you can have a perfectly good morality without God. Or you can have an enormously clever and subtle God, who designs the fundamental laws of physics in the universe in such a way that life will inevitably create itself out of nothing in many places in the universe, and automatically organize into creatures that are not only sentient but moral. This is a God who doesn't just write a moral code down in a book and give it to men to read, but who wires it directly into the physical laws of the universe so that when men appear, morality will be written into their souls and they will write books of morality for each other to read.

That's more the kind of God that I'm inclined to believe in, but I can understand that people might find that one less comforting than the traditional one. Instead of forming man with his own hands 10,000 years ago, this God wrote the laws of physics several bazillion years ago, without having mankind necessarily especially in mind. It's a God who works from a very great distance, who is not hovering nearby, looking over your shoulder. You probably can't expect him to perform miracles on request or establish a personal relationship with you. So I guess this kind of "big god" isn't really that popular with people.

Wow, Jan. That was an awesome post. There are so many things I could add to expand on it, but I'm more interested in seeing Adam's reaction to just what you wrote, since you've both been involved in these PBN mini-blogs way longer than I have.

The one thing I will add is that, while I don't believe in god in any way, if I did, it would be the one you describe, the one who gets things started, then sits back and leaves us to our own devices, and who, in the end, judges us by the quality of our lives and actions toward others, not by how much we sing his praises.

One little plug here. I'm a big comic fan. If anyone wants to see an extremely thought provoking commentary about the Biblical Christian god, find "Fallen Angel: To Serve in Heaven" by Peter David and J.K. Woodward, and read pages 94-99 (also in issue #5 of the monthly comic from IDW). It's a truly amazing conversation between the Fallen Angel and her human son.

"Tom." God created you, whether or not you choose to believe it. He still loves you. If you have children, you will understand. You may hate the things your children do wrong, but you still love THEM, right? And when they are old enough to understand right and wrong, you punish them, don't you? But you still love them. God is a loving, but also a just, God.

I never criticized you only for your beliefs, but because you were blatantly attacking mine. God is all loving, yet He is also just. He will not allow sin against Him to go unpunished.

I agree with #60 almost completely. Please come back to the fold, "Tom." I apologize for the rude things I said about you personally. God wants all of his children saved, but like Jan said, He is that type of God that allows us to freely choose what we will do, and not control our actions. I had already mentioned that previously.

Reread the last 4 paragraphs I wrote in #55. That sums it up. Just like you said I haven't refuted your arguments, I also say that you never answered any of my questions either. You claim I am ignorant of your beliefs, yet when I ask you to clarify, you go off on my beliefs being "archaic dribble," etc, and avoid answering.

The point is this. One of us is wrong. And one of us is right. It won't matter here on earth which of us is which, but it might after we die, and I won't take that chance.

If you want to answer my questions, then I will proceed to discuss things. If you are going to belittle God, religion, and faith, then do it in your bathroom, behind closed doors, so no one who knows better has to listen to it.

I would like to say a big thanks to Jan and Tom, both of your comments here have been an inspiration to me, between you both you have written a lot of my thoughts on the subject at hand. I have followed this since the beginning, and have felt a lot of emotion at some of the comments here, both good and not so good. But I have refrained from commenting myself as my own beliefs are not yet fully formed, but with input from some very intelligent people here I am now convinced that my beliefs are heading in the right direction, and it is all the confirmation that I need to continue believing what I believe to be right for me. I have enjoyed reading these comments immensely, I have never read or heard such insightful thoughts like these before.
I made sure that I experienced religion in the past when I was younger, I did it with an open heart and mind, but it just didn't sit right with me, I have also read parts of the bible, I needed to make sure I wasn't missing out on something important, and as it goes, I wasn't. I am not an atheist by any means, I do not label myself at all where these beliefs are concerned, I am just me, and I try to be a good person, for the survival of myself and my kin, and I am happy, this is my heaven, here on this earth with my angels...my children, love the little darlings, and my dog, gosh I love him, hehe, what is dog spelt backwards, sorry...couldn't help myself :) I always make the most of here and now.
Just to finish, I totally respect others beliefs....why?....because I expect the very same respect from others concerning my beliefs whether they think them right or wrong.
Thanks again guys :)

Adam: I do punish my kids, and I even punish them for acting disrespectfully to me. However, I don't do that because I am offended by their disrespect. I do that because one of the skills they need to learn to be able to thrive in life is to give authority figures a proper degree of respect (enough, but not too much).

I don't really see how this is similar to God's sending people who call him names to hell. Who other than himself is God hoping to teach people to respect? And when I choose how to punish my children, I choose the minimum punishment that will make the point. Eternal suffering seems out of proportion. Is there really ANYTHING that you can do in a short human lifetime that deserves eternal punishment?

But an even deeper problem is that I punish my children only in hopes of teaching them something. But you can't teach people to be better people by sending them to hell, because it's too late. They are already dead and don't (according to Christian theology) get a second chance. So the punishments in hell can't teach anything to the souls condemned there. There is no hope of them becoming better people or deriving any benefit from the punishment.

Maybe God punishes people as an example to others. But if that were the point, then doing it where nobody living can see it seems like a poor choice. If I was a high school principal, I might punish one child as an example to other children, but then I wouldn't do it secretly in a locked room in the basement.

So I don't get the comparison between hell and a parent's punishing a wayward child. They seem completely different to me.

Of course they seem completely different to you. No one who doesn't believe in God will understand. I see your point about punishing in front of others as an example for others to see. But that is where faith comes in. The fact that people will be sent to hell for committing sin is all the example I need. God loves you too, Jan.

Adam, you just don't get it, do you? You take offense at my criticism of your beliefs, yet every one of your posts from the start has been critical of mine. Why do you refuse to see the hypocrisy? And now you're preaching to me in your first and third paragraphs. If you want me to keep my belittling behind closed doors, then please be respectful enough to do the same, and keep your preaching to yourself. (For the record, my definition of "preaching" is based on the presence or a real or implied audience. Your statements were aimed directly at me, thus you're preaching, which is disrespectful.)

Your second paragraph just confirms my beliefs. Nothing I've said in this dialogue could remotely be called a sin, yet you imply as much. A god who considers what I've said thus far to be sinful isn't a god worth even acknowledging, much less praising.

You say I didn't answer your questions. I beg to differ. I certainly did answer enough of them to get my point across and explain the basis for my beliefs. Pardon me if I didn't give the detailed reply to each and every question that you seem to think you're entitled to.

Your fifth paragraph is completely wrong. We can't both be right, but we CAN both be wrong. An answer can't be both yes and no, but it can be maybe. As for it not mattering here on Earth, again that's wrong. You imply praise is the highest virtue, so it's safe to assume you spend a good amount of time doing it. You no doubt go to church at least once a week. Imagine if the time spent sitting in the pews praying or singing were spent instead in a soup kitchen, pediatric clinic, animal shelter, or any number of other charitable endeavors. Which time spent is the more virtuous?

Oh yeah, before I forget, I already told you my name is Tom, not "Tom". You whine about being belittled, yet you can't show enough respect to use my name? Fine. From here on, you're monkeyputz.

So, monkeyputz, at this point neither of us is gong to convince the other to change his views, so I'll leave it at agreeing to disagree. I'll stick to my evidence-based beliefs. You cling to your unsupportable faith. You spend the rest of your days worrying about your entry into heaven. I'll spend the rest of mine thinking about things that actually matter.

Marie-Louise, thank you. Glad I could be of service. Honestly, after all these years, I really don't know if I'm atheist, agnostic, or one of the other varieties. They all disbelieve in god, but differ on the technicalities of proof and evidence. For the most part, I'm still at your level and have been for many years, defining my belief as "not concerned enough to pick one of the labels". I identified myself as atheist for the purpose of this discussion because it was the attacked position and there's a good chance that's where my beliefs actually lie.

In any event, thanks again, especially for putting me (and jan) in the "intelligent" pool.

I am glad I am not the only hypocrite, "Tom." Until you are ready to answer questions, stop "preaching" at me, too. I have simply stated my beliefs. You still hind behind yours.
God is real. He loves you and wants you to come back to Him.

Hmm... So when God punishes people eternally in hell, he is making an example of them, but only an example to the faithful, who are the only ones who believe that it is actually happening. However, people who already believe don't need this example. It wouldn't stop them from leaving the fold, unless they were still believers when they left the fold, in which case they wouldn't be leaving the fold anyway. The most that believers could derive from the example of those eternally suffering sinners would be a sense of satisfaction that it isn't them, which hardly seems worth torturing millions of souls to achieve. I guess you're right. I can't understand it. Luckily, I don't have to.

I am glad you don't have to either. God exists. He loves you. You are His child. He wants you to be happy and return to live with Him.

Return?

Never mind. God loves you. He is real.

Monkeyputz, I've hidden behind nothing. I've answered enough of your questions for any thinking person to know where I stand and the basis for my beliefs. Because you don't want to listen to them, or you lack the intelligence to understand them, doesn't mean they weren't there. Grow up and go away!! Thinking people are tired of you.

Jan, I LOVE how you describe Monkeyputz's circular logic, even if he does lack the mental faculties to understand and appreciate the sarcasm.

God still loves you. He exists and He is real. Even if you continue to show your lack of intelligence by criticizing me,
I don't mind anymore. I am way past your insults. I hope you return to the fold and cleanse your poor heart. God lives!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Hmmm, did I just hear some faint mindless noise? Nah, must've been a bug of some kind. It'll probably just die a lonely death before morning. Nothing to bother with. Back to bed. Good night. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

God is real. He exists. He loves you, Tom. I am praying for you. I hope you come back to him.

Thanks for changing your tone Monkeyboy. I agree with you on most of what you said (about there being a God; He does give us the agency to choose what we believe).

Anyway, I agree that we'll all just have to disagree about this. (P.S. I believe in most of your "evolutionary theory" Jan, well put. However I think that God did have us in mind and once things started going, put "Adam and Eve" down here to get the ball rolling with the human race. That's just my opinion.)

Wow, drama O.o

Okay, Tom? I'm not saying Adam is in the right here, some of his comments were bad as well, but you cannot claim the religious here started it. Okay, some of the initial comments were a bit patronising and ignorant, but certainly not with any malicious intent. And it was all talked through and pretty much dealt with.

Then you come on and call it 'superstitious dribble', which a direct insult on their faith. Of course someone's going to respond angrily. Some good points were also made, including by you, but the bickering surrounding it was unnecessary and was certainly not all on Adam (although he didn't help, I'll admit).

Oh, and comment #78? Childish. Really, if you want to prove a point that is not how you go about it, seriously.

Jan thank you for #63. It was very informative and helped me to at least understand some of your way of thinking. If I take your theory on a personal level, I know for a fact that I would have died before reaching any sort of "perfectly good morals without God".

As for your description of a possible "God scenerio" it resembles my understanding of the God of the Bible with two major differences. One being that he is most interested (but not forcing) in personal relationships with us. The other being that he did create us and the world we live in, not with his hand but with his word, however he did indeed create the natural laws by which we are all governed. That is at least my understanding of the God of the Bible, in whom I believe. Oh and you are right, He isn't very popular and because of our limited capacity and experience all who believe in "god" try to form him into our own image. Excuse my use of him, I could find no better word.

Thank you, Naomi. Very well stated. I am glad someone unbiased sees reason. Yes, of course I said some things I shouldn't have, for which I have apologized and completely stopped saying. What has Tom done? Continued his same old pattern of criticizing and belittling. THAT shows immaturity and childishness more than anything, doesn't it?

Don't worry Tom, there is still time to change. God is real and He loves you so much!

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

I, as a Christian, have my faith & belief & am proud of it.
There is SO much more that could be said here on the behalf of Christianity, but as it says in the Holy Bible..
Matthew 10:14 (KJV)
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Jan, to echo what a lot of others have said, I very much appreciate the points you made in #63.

Tom, please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't someone who is agnostic believe there is a God but doesn't conform to a structured religion (comment #70). That is the way it was explained to me a year or two ago.

Now for my two cents:

I was born and raised Catholic and went to a Catholic school for roughly 10 years. I will admit that my Catholic school as as many if not more problems then the public school that my brothers go to (long story short, the principal and pastor felt that if you were continuing to the Catholic High School, you didn't deserve the same treatment as everyone else).

One of the things I remember hearing in my last year at that school was that all major religions believe in different versions of the same God. And as long as a person followed their religion and was a good person they would be "rewarded" after death.

I realize now that I have taken most of this statement to heart and even "generalized" (I don't think this is the word I'm looking for but I can't think of a better one) it even more so that in my mind, it now reads "if you're a good person and believe in God you will be rewarded"

After reading comment #57 I think I do have redefine this belief even further. I can't imagine the God I believe in deny a good and moral person entrance into Heaven because they questioned religion and didn't believe in Him. Also if my belief turns out to be wrong, I'm not sure quite that I would want to be in a place that so ridiculously exclusive in who is allowed entrance.

Also, Tom, I think your sentence in comment 57 is absolutely right. Religious people have done a lot of horrible things in the name of their God and as much as I dislike admitting it, from what I remember from my history courses, us Christians have done more then most others.

Personally, I have had several rough patches in my life. Through all these, I have taken comfort in some of the stories from my religion that say that there is someone there I can turn to for help and that I do not have to carry my burden alone and other similar ideas. Now that I'm a little bit older, I understand that we all must deal with the cards that life has dealt us. I'm willing to admit that religion could just be one of those coping mechanisms that humans devise.

---

On another note, Tom, I will admit that I am very much ignorant about atheists and their beliefs. I have never had the pleasure of meeting one and having a discussion about it. (In all honesty, as this thread exemplifies, I realize that discussions about beliefs can turn into personal attacks very quickly and try to avoid religious discussions unless I know the person well) I would very much like to hear more about your story and your beliefs. You had mentioned before that you were born and raised Christian but then questioned what you had been taught until you dismissed it. And I did read where you responded to Adam about some of your beliefs. If you don't mind, would you please share some more.

Also, a general request, if anyone knows some information about Buddhism, I would love to learn about that too.

Excellent point, Nancy. Thanks for also not being ashamed to defend your faith.

Jen, thanks for your response and input. The only statement I would make is this... there is a big difference between someone who "questioned religion," and someone who flat out DENIES any existence of God, or anything to do with God at all. I can more easily understand and relate to true agnostics, in their being not sure if their is a God, because they don't flat out deny that there is one.

I've been away all day and now it's late, so there's much to catch up on and not a lot of time in which to do it.

Naomi #81, I absolutely can claim the religious started this. The patronizing pity at the very beginning was very much an attack on atheism. By the time of my first post, there had been quite a lot of that, and the other side needed airing. I kept the comment generic on purpose. The first personal attacks were directed AT me, not BY me.

What you saw as childish in #78 was my becoming bored with Adam's rants. He had proven himself incapable of, or unwilling to, engage in intelligent dialogue, so he got the brush off he deserved.

Adam #83, Thank you for finally using my correct name, thus my responding in kind. But that's as far as it goes. The rest is the same nonsense AND PREACHING you've been spewing all along.

Bionerd #84, Your statements are absolutely correct. The point of all this is that we're all entitled to our own beliefs, and as long as they remain personal, or within like minded communities, there isn't a problem. I may not agree with your views, but if you keep them out of my face, I have no reason to be confrontational. My mom and younger sister are very religious (Methodist), my oldest brother married a Jew and converted. Another brother and sister, I don't quite know where they stand, and I'm, well, we all know that by now. We all respect each other's right to believe what we've chosen, because we keep it personal. I have issues with the Catholic Church, but won't walk into a mass and start airing them because it's totally inappropriate. And if, in that mass, they want to demonize my beliefs, they're in an environment where I can't at all deny them the right to do that, and STILL would not have the right to walk in and air my views.

The bottom line is that religious beliefs are personal, and so long as they remain that way, I have no issue with them. This, however, is a very public forum, and the rules are different.

Jen #86, very nice post. Believe it or not, after all this time, I still find myself screwing it up when I try to define atheism and agnosticism. And it doesn't help when the so-called experts not only can't agree on even the basic definitions, but keep creating variations, so I'm not going to claim that my definitions are absolutely definitive. End of disclaimer.

The very basic definitions are that atheists believe there is no god and agnostics acknowledge there's no way to know. The word skeptic also comes up a lot, which I personally associate more with agnostics, because both terms include the possibility that there is a god. Atheists are more certain of their belief that there's no god, and are far less likely to keep open the possibility that they might be wrong. Agnostics/skeptics keep that door open, at least part way. Anyway, within both of the a's, there are variations based on proof and verifiability.

That's as far as I can really take it without stepping out of my comfort zone. But I've got to say, I've never seen the definition you outline in your second paragraph even remotely applied to agnostics, who tend to be NON-believers. The definition you were given was of believers, whose only question is which, if any, of the dogmatic variations most resembles their beliefs.

As to my personal journey, it isn't all that exciting, but will probably end up taking more time that I want to devote to it right now because of the hour (at least here on the US east coast. I have no idea where any of you people live and what time it is there.) It sounds like something that I would enjoy writing, but I can't trust myself NOT to come down with a case of diarrhea of the fingers, so it'll have to wait for another time. Sorry.

Adam #87, FINALLY, a post I don't have an issue with, and a comment I can respect. Yes, there is a world of difference between denying and questioning god and I can certainly recognize where you would more easily understand the agnostic. It doesn't help our specific disagreement much, but it's comforting to know you can relate to at least SOME people who don't share your staunch beliefs. That's more openness than I've seen from you in any of your earlier posts. Thank you.

With that, I'm off to bed.

Wow, is that really you who wrote that last post, Tom??? Sure seems like a different "you" than previously. There is really nothing to argue anymore.

To you, God doesn't exist. To me, He does. He sure loves you, no matter what. End of story. :-)

Thank you for your reply Tom. I feel like I understand "the a's" as you put it a little better now. I will admit, my definition os agnostic was based on one person's definition and this guy happened to be a former Catholic who had issues with his Church.

Adam, as to your distinction between questioning and denying God, I guess I was attempting a diplomatic phrase and it didn't quite mean what I intended it to. English was never my best subject.

And one other thing, Tom, I'm also on the East coast.

My understanding of the term "agnostic" is the same as Tom's, and I never really liked the term because I never really liked the definition. If an agnostic is simply someone who says "I don't know", then that's pretty simple minded. I certainly agree that there is no objectively demonstrable evidence for or against God (lots of people say they "know" but that is subjective - they can't explain their knowledge in a way that will convince a reasonably sharp critic). However this really beside the point. The question was never if you know that God exists, the question was if you believe that God exists.

There is another sense in which agnosticism can be seen as more than an intellectual lazy dodge. If you recognize that a moral system can be built that continues to work just fine without any appeal to God, then you might discover that the existence or non-existence of God doesn't actually make any difference to how you live your life. You are going to do your best to act morally regardless of whether or not any punishment is awaiting you in the afterlife. If that's the case, then it really doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, and perhaps you should just get on with life and stop worrying about all this God business.

I guess these days I'm about 50% agnostic, and 50% deist. Except deism has too complicated a history for me to really want to adopt the term. Deists basically believe there is a God, but that God does not intervene in the universe. No miracles, no prayers, no afterlife, etc. Some people classify Unitarians as deists, but it seems to me to be more of an umbrella under which people can believe anything they like and still have a religious community they can call there own. I've never had any particular desire for a religious community, myself.

Adam #89, Yes, that was the same me. You have to understand this dialogue began with very patronizing comments from your side of the aisle. When I entered it, I was defensive above all else, and your responses did nothing to lower the tension level. One particular post (you know which one) heightened it. While I don't really see it in my own posts, I'm open to the notion that they also contributed to keeping the tension level high.

Thanks to Jan and a few others with their enlightened comments and questions, I've been able to change the tone of my comments so as to directly address theirs. Answering them, and bypassing you, allowed me to elaborate on my views in a non-confrontational, yet still informative, manner, assist to move the conversation to a more intellectual level, and perhaps the best part of it, drastically reduce the tension level. It is, and has always been, my preferred level of discourse.

Jan #91, As usual, a thoughtful post. There are no doubt people who use the simplistic "I don't know" as the final answer to questions about their beliefs, implying little thought expended or intended. (Or for that matter required. There are many people for whom religious belief is simply a non-issue, as it has zero impact on thir lives.) Agnostics take it further, examining their beliefs critically. (And I'm making that claim universally, because in MY definition, which as I said in my last post, isn't necessarily definitive, the critical examination is one of the components that defines agnosticism. If you haven't examined your beliefs, you can't lay claim to the term.) To them, the lack of proof is a factor in their skepticism, which is why they lean toward non-belief. But that's by no means universal as there are agnostics who lean toward belief.

Okay, I really gotta go, probably for quite a few more hours. I'm glad we've reached a level of civility and I hope it stays there.

Adam, your #55 and #65 gave me the impression, that you chose to believe just in case. Like you're keeping your options open for afterlife or something. Or was it just an expression to get "the a's" to start believing?
One more thing, telling us non-believers REPEATEDLY that God loves us... I HATE unwanted preaching. Please don't say that anymore, I would really appreciate it.

I used to have a downtown apartment where there was a popular bar between my parking place and the apartment building. On rare occasions things outside the bar could get kind of ... dramatic, but I felt like this was MY neighborhood and I always walked through the crowds as if I owned the place.

There was a while when a street preacher started showing up in the early evenings. He'd stand on an upside-down milk crate, and call for the people lined up outside the bar to abandon the ways of sin and turn to God. Well, about the third time I saw him there, I stopped and pointed out that the milk crate was the stolen property of a local dairy company. Theft is a sin. Standing in line in an orderly manner is not. We may all be sinners, but the only person actually sinning was him. How could he preach the word of God while standing on stolen property?

He said "like this" and started up twice as loud as before. I went on my way, impressed by the self-sufficiency of his philosophy. Preaching doesn't particularly impress me, but I've given up arguing with it.

Hehe, I like your stories Jan. I wish I had some awesome point-making stories.

I've never cared much for curbside preachers, mostly because most of them wouldn't be able to back up their preaching, but to say he was the only one sinning is off base..according to just about everyone, religious or not, destroying your body with alcohol or any other way is a sin and/or wrong. Also everyone sins from a little white lie to murder it's all a "sin" or as others would put it "wrong".
His response was horrible, it's people like him that gives Christianity a bad name.
We are not all like that. I have shared the word of God with a lot of people & have never had them feel uncomfortable or like I was "Preaching" down to them..some excepted what I said some didn't, but that's o.k. I still have the ones that didn't agree as friends :)

Thank you Nancy. Well said.


Merili, I stopped "preaching" (as you call it) long ago (stuff like telling you to repent, change your ways, etc.) Telling you God loves you and that He is real is just making a statement. A very true statement. Just ignore me if you don't care for it, just like Jan (and others). In fact, you hadn't commented at all until now. Why do it now?

By the way, since you brought it up, I fully believe in God because He is real, not "just in case." I was just making a point about my beliefs, and not just to try and get "the a's" to believe.

I still don't think the folks standing in that line were sinning. Some probably had some sinful intentions, but that's not the same as actively sinning. Most were probably perfectly decent, moral people, just out to have a couple drinks with their friends.

I think the Christian idea that "we are all sinners" is actually rather nice. It can be a road to humility, toward the recognition that life is hard for everyone, and nobody can do more than their best. It's the "but I'm saved because I've embraced God" part that seems to confuse some people, like my street preacher. I mean, why did that guy drag along that junky old milk crate when he went to preach? Just so he could stand above and apart from his audience and so he'd be able to look down on them and they'd have to look up to him. If he'd stepped down off that thing, he could have been ten times the preacher and ten times the Christian.

Maybe the crate was already there at the bar, and your "preacher" just happened to use it to stand on so he could be more easily heard, without having had to steal it and bring it with him. Isn't that possible?

Also, I never said "I am saved because I've embraced God." Believing in God is only the first step. All of those other things still apply, such as being a good person, helping others, making good choices and trying to live a moral life, as almost each of us who have commented in this forum have alluded to in some way or another.

Very true Jan, that street Preacher seemed to be a bit full of himself, by trying to stand above everyone else was like saying "I'm better than you" & his response to you was even worse!
Being a christian doesn't give us liberty to judge others or put others down, like that street preacher did. I'm sure he was trying to do the right thing, but I feel he went about it all wrong..after all what is more pleasing to your taste buds vinegar or honey?

In response to "I'm saved because I've embraced God" that IS what the bible teaches.. ("not by acts or deeds but by the grace of God"). I can understand how it would confuse others because you would have to feel what I feel in order to understand, it's like a trust thing.

Christianity is a growth process, you start out by having faith & accepting God into your life (at which point you are like an infant) but the more you study the more you grow & mature.(just like in everything in life) So it's not much different from anyone else (belief or non-belief) maybe that street preacher was an over zealous infant

The dialogue is on the move again.

Merili #93, wow, my coined term "the a's" has really stuck. I was just tired of typing both words repeatedly. This year's "truthiness" perhaps?

Anyway, even as Adam and I have mostly decided to make nice, he still hasn't gotten it that incessantly saying "God loves you" to someone he knows is a non-believer IS preaching. When he says it's "just making a statement. A very true statement", he's making the claim that the statement is a proven FACT, which it most certainly is NOT (show me the proof, Adam), and which to a non-believer is offensive. I stopped complaining about it because he's made it clear he won't listen, and apparently believes it's his "god given" right to offend non-believers. Plus, getting him down to that level of offense has been its own accomplishment, so I'll have to settle for that.

Nancy #96, please don't equate "sin" and "wrong". They're entirely different animals. Actions can be one and not the other.

Jan #94, while I like the point you're making, in this instance, I disagree with you more than I agree, but just on trivial details. Without actually knowing the history of the crate, you can't be certain it was stolen. It may have been in the garbage or given to him, especially if it was "junky" as you say in #98. (OH NO, I just agreed with Adam #99!!) And standing on it could be a simple matter of it being easier to see a speaker who's elevated, which is why public speakers in a forum where the audience is at a flat level almost always are elevated. I can't read too much into those things.

I would be much more offended at him taking it upon himself to preach in a venue where he can't be certain the listeners want to hear the message, or deserve to. Imposing the message on an unwilling audience is far more offensive than standing on a crate to deliver it.

Nancy #100, it's amazing how much I agree, then disagree, with your closing paragraph. I'm with you on the infant analogy, the stage at which we accept and absorb everything we're spoon fed. But growth and maturity must involve a critical examination of those beliefs we previously took at face value without question, and honest examination must inevitably lead to disbelief, or at least skepticism. There is massive overwhelming scientific evidence to explain many of the questions of life and the universe. What verifiable evidence is there of the existence of a supreme being? None, and there never will be. Continuation of belief, despite all evidence to the contrary, can only be a matter of faith, a conscious choice to remain at the infantile stage.

Jen #86, without meaning to, I just answered part of your question about my journey. Filling in the rest, I never actually went through the process above on a conscious deliberate level, but through high school, I was increasingly bored with church and knew the religious aspects were just not that important to my life. But at the same time I was realizing this, I was also seeing there was no appreciable difference to how I acted toward others. I was just as decent a person without god as I was with. I was never a big believer in doing good because the Bible told me to, or for a reward in the afterlife, so there was no change to my motivations for being a good person, which only reinforced my increasing disbelief.

For my first two years of college, I didn't attend church there, but did when I was home on breaks, just to make my mom happy. When I told her after the second year that I was no longer going to go, she said she expected it eventually (my three older brothers had all done likewise). And with the exception of one glaring incident (no details are coming), she's never had reason to think me any less decent for having left the church. (And any doubts she had shortly after that incident have been erased.)

My hostility toward religion has been a more recent development, and less of my own choice than as a need to 1) push back at the immoral efforts of the radical religious right to impose its beliefs on all of society (the moral majority has never been either moral OR the majority), and 2) in response to ignorant claims that because we don't have the answer to a particular question, it must be divine. Humankind should have outgrown #2 even before Jesus walked the Earth, so its frustrating to hear people who still cling to such simplistic non-answers. (No pun or disrespect intended on the reference to Jesus. I DO believe the person of Jesus likely existed. But the miracles attributed to him are something else entirely. BID).

Okay, the much feared diarrhea of the fingers happened, and I must end this for now. I'll answer any of your questions, but not for a bit. My fingers hurt.

No, Tom, you won't ("answer any of your questions"). At least, you haven't in the past. But that doesn't matter anymore. You keep speaking your mind, and I will do the same. You keep calling "infantile" the things that we "believers" say, so I will continue to say what I feel, as well.

Call it whatever you want. God is real. He exists. And He loves you. All of you. Even you "non-believers."

Adam, you're half right. I won't answer any of YOUR questions. You've already made clear you're unwilling to recognize them when I do. Either that or you're just too stupid to understand them. Whichever the case, your refusal to see my answers doesn't mean they weren't there. No one else has accused me of not answering their questions. In fact, I've been thanked for answering some. Proof positive that the problem is with you, not with me.

Nancy, in response to what you said about, "I'm saved because I've embraced God" that's true it's in the Bible but it also says in James that faith without works is dead. So, I see both yours and monkeyboy's points. I believe that we are all sinners (no one is perfect and we never will be) and even with all the good we do, we still need Christ to save us (he makes up the difference in our perfection, or lack there of).

As far as what Tom has said, I really won't comment too much because we disagree and will never convince each other. But saying that we continue our beliefs despite evidence, is wrong. It's just how we interpret evidence (science) that differs. In my opinion science reinforces my belief that there is a Supreme Being who created all the rules of science, gives order to the universe, etc. You think it disproves His existence. That's the difference.

Also, it's not nice to call names...calling people possibly "stupid" is just wrong. Please refrain!

I am totally on the same page as you Telly :)

Tom to your comment on "please don't equate "sin" and "wrong". They're entirely different animals. Actions can be one and not the other. "... To me they are the same, so why would I say anything different!

To your response to my closing paragraph..,How could you possibly know anything about my personal spiritual belief & assume just because you have chosen to NOT believe is God that you would be right & I am wrong or as you put it "in a infantile stage"

Not once did I insult anyone that does not agree with me all I tried to do was express my point of view on what "I" personally believe, I felt bad for what Jan had experienced.

I really don't understand your anger or condescension to Christians. You have chosen your path in life so why do you feel the need to belittle others for their path.

You want Adam to stop saying God loves you because it offends you & yet you feel it's ok for you offend us. It's like you feel your opinion is the only thing that matters. you really don't sound very happy, I may be wrong but that is the way you come across.

Just so you know, I will not be drawn into arguing with you. I am where I want to be & you are where you want to be..lets leave it at that - OK :)

Tom, you poor, depressed lost soul. I feel so sorry for you. I honestly do. Wandering aimlessly through life. I want so much to help you.

Here is the saddest part. Your blatant hypocrisy is utterly amazing. How you fail to see that is beyond me. Everyone else here can. All you ever do is criticize the believers personally (especially me) and get defensive when I innocently speak my beliefs to you, WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING PERSONAL ABOUT YOU AT ALL (at least since I apologized for having done so earlier, and until now, calling you a hypocrite).

I, at least, realize my mistakes and do my best to correct them. That has nothing to do with religion. It is just common courtesy and moral decency; but what do you do? Ignore that you make any, and even if you DO happen to admit to yourself (which I highly doubt) that you said or did something even remotely wrong, is there any apology? Not that I have seen. THAT demonstrates "infantile" behavior, as you like to put it, using your own word.
Can you HONESTLY not see that? That you hurt people? If not, then I really am at a loss for words.

No matter, though. I don't want this to be personal. I really don't. Why do you continue to make it that way? God forgives you. I forgive you. God loves you and wants so much for you to turn to Him. He lives! Father, forgive Tom, for he knows not what he does. Actually, let me clarify. Father, forgive Tom, even though he knows what he does.

Well spoken, Telly and Nancy. Especially the part where you wrote that Tom doesn't sound very happy. I totally have gotten that vibe as well. I think we all have. Well, most of us, anyway.

Jane #104, To believe science reinforces a belief in a supreme being requires a horrendous distortion of the definitions and nature of scientific discovery and experimentation. And to take it further, that science reinforces your belief in a supreme being who invented the rules of science is just circular logic, which isn't logic at all.

As far as calling Adam possibly stupid, it was overdue. When you answer somebody's questions, and they repeatedly say you didn't do so, it's either intentional refusal to acknowledge the answers or an inability to comprehend them. I've already used the nicer language enough times, and I'm fed up with him.

Nancy #105, On your replies to both of my comments to you in #101, you expressed your opinion, so did I. I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to express mine. I must have missed that lesson in "free exchange of ideas" class.

As for my supposed anger and condescension to Christians, it's actually directed at ALL religions. It just seems focused on Christians because it's been Christians who've been displaying it toward me and atheists in general. For a loving and tolerant religion, the comments have been decidedly INtolerant. But I've come to expect that. But also see my #88. Only when provoked does this side come out.

And as a general statement about ALL of my posts, they've all been in direct response to prior comments or questions. If you don't want rebuttals, don't comment.

Adam, you're pathetic. I could pick apart your #106, but why bother? You'll just delude yourself into believing I didn't say any of the things I said.

As I said in #88, I'm very tolerant of religion when it's personal. Yours has not once been so. Even when we were as close to making nice as could be expected, you just couldn't resist the urge to continue your preaching. And #106 just intentionally wreaked of it.

And the funniest/saddest part of it all? That this all began because you and your ilk felt threatened by a simple PBN puzzle that merely said "Atheist Day". The way you've been acting, you'd think it was a picture of Jesus fornicating.

Meanwhile, go to any of the religious puzzles and read the comments and find the offensive ones from me. Oh, that's right, you won't find any. I'm respectful enough to not pick a fight in the comments of a puzzle that displays YOUR beliefs. Too bad that doesn't work both ways.

And you accuse me of hypocrisy? Look in a mirror. The textbook definition will be staring right back at you.

Adam, in response to your "you hadn't commented at all until now. Why do it now?"
Just because I arrive late to a conversation I can't speak my mind?? What gives you the right to forbid someone from asking questions or expressing their opinion? "Can you HONESTLY not see that? That you hurt people?"
(yeah, I know, I know, "God loves me and forgives me" and so on and so forth)

I have never understood how a person can be offended by hearing that they are loved by something they don't believe exists.

On the other side, I can find nothing more evil than a person who truly belives that people are headed for the horrific hell described in the Bible and choosing not to warn them. There is no greater hatred in my mind. As for the one who wishes to go to hell rather than to be in heaven with a "pompous" God, find out what hell is like before you make that choice. If you don't believe in hell that is fine but I wouldn't take the chance of wishing to go there. It might be wiser to choose another place to wish to go to.

I don't mind if they say it once. They say it, I hear it, "thank you for your concern, but I don't believe in him/her/it and would appreciate if you don't say it again". But when someone keeps saying it over and over and over again, then it truly bothers me. Once should be enough.

Judy #110, to paraphrase, "I don't understand how a person like you can be offended by a person like me. Conversely, I don't understand how a person like you can be offended by a person like me."

Then there's "nothing is more evil than a person like me, choosing to not impose my beliefs on a person like you." THAT'S the most evil thing you can find in this world??? Sounds like the same kind of reasoning we hear from middle east terrorists. Oh, but I forgot. Their's is the "wrong" religion. Yours is the "right" one.

Merili #109 and #111, again, well said. And they wonder why we have a low tolerance for attitudes like theirs. They're amazingly, and deliberately, clueless.

Re Adam #99: No, it was his crate. As I said, I watched him for several weeks before talking to him, and he always had the crate. At that time the dairy companies where making a huge stink about all their crates being stolen by students who wanted to use them as book cases, packing cases, etc. They were enormously useful things, and I admit I still have a few. They all have "property of Such and Such" stamped on them in big letters, and the dairy companies emphasized that all such crates should be returned to the dairies, and that they were NEVER legally sold. It was sort of the 1980's equivalent of illegal music downloads. These days you can find similar crates, with various small improvements, in any office supply store, but in those days everyone knew that any crate you saw was stolen goods.

Re Nancy #100: I'm obviously not the world's biggest expert on Christianity, never having been one, but my understanding is that, yes, absolutely, the only route to salvation is through the grace of God, not by good works. But you don't get the grace of God just by showing up at church regularly and mentioning His name a lot. You have to try to live a life of virtue. Clearly God judges you, to determine if you have earned his grace, but I think the point of the "not by your works" thing is that he judges you be your intentions, not necessarily by what is accomplished. A philanthropic rich man may do much more good with much less effort than a crippled poor man, but that doesn't mean he will be judged better. And one thing that can count against you is the sin of pride.

Re Judy #110: So, when Adam tells us that "God loves us" what is he doing? He's not simply imparting information to us. He can't honestly believe that anyone living in American hasn't heard this before, no matter what their faith might be. (Hmmm...is everyone participating in this discussion an American? I suspect nobody gets quite as worked up about this as Americans do.) I don't think I really know what his intent is, but it feels aggressive and dismissive.

I totally agree with #111. It seems like monkey says it just to piss off Tom which may be the case. And that bothers me. I know he will say it's not to piss him off, which is good. But IF (and i emphasize the IF so I'm not saying you are, monkey, please don't take offense) it is used for ill-will towards someone else, then you really shouldn't use God in that way. I think he got your point the first time, he honestly doesn't need to hear it a million times. I keep my faith to myself, if anyone asks, then I'll tell them whatever they want to hear, but honestly it's not my business what others believe.

re Jan #113 You are correct, I just didn't go into anymore details because I didn't want my statement to come off as preaching & get attacked, but I guess that didn't work, someone seems to be on the warpath no matter what is said

Tom, You really should take the statements made by others in their entire content, picking them apart or twisting them to meet your needs to insult or belittle is exactly what is wrong with most of the church/religions in today's world.

I have a lot of respect for everyone here opening up & expressing how they feel about their own beliefs, it takes a lot of courage.
No two people will completely agree on everything. I guess thats what humanity is all about :)

Nancy, I do read entire posts before I comment and I twist nothing. I comment only on the parts that I feel need a response. If I ignore part of a post, it's because I either agree with it, admittedly less likely in this discussion, or I recognize that commenting is pointless. And by "pointless", I'm not implying anything negative. I'm just acknowledging to myself that we disagree, have each stated our opinion, and nothing can be gained by perpetuating the argument.

I could have had a field day picking apart the sin/wrong equation, finding numerous Biblical "sins" that aren't "wrong" in a sane world (like the entire book of Leviticus), and other things we would clearly consider wrong that the Bible implies are acceptable behaviors. I didn't because nothing could be gained by doing so. My purpose was NOT to prove you wrong, but to offer my opinion, and my initial statement on the matter was sufficient.

As far as my "need to insult or belittle", I have no such need. But I DO have a need to stand my ground. This entire dialogue began with patronizing sanctimonius condescension of atheists, so the need arose right at the beginning.

I also refuse to sit idly by and tolerate the hypocrisy coming from your side of the aisle. Need an example? In your closing paragraph of #100, you state your opinion on the faith process. I offered my opinion in #101. We both used the word "you" in an obviously generic sense. I didn't take your comments personally, yet you made the decision to take mine VERY personally, and in your reply in #105, you exhibited the belittling tone that you accused me of using. Who's the hypocrite?

In #115, you correctly state that insulting and belittling behavior is what is wrong with most of the churches and religions in today's world. But you left out the second half. While religions excel at insulting non-believers, and believers of different faiths, they somehow believe they're immune to having it directed back at them. I'm here to point out that that just ain't so.

And, again, I direct you back to the start of the dialogue, where a small group of sanctimonius zealots patted each other on the back, reveling in their piety. Then I come along and, OMG, the sky is falling, someone's actually standing up to us. Yeah, it's gotten testy, but sometimes that's what it takes to knock people off their undeserved self-annointed pedestals.

Now, since you told me to read entire comments, I assume you do likewise and that you're still with me here, so now's the time to offer a slight apology. I used your comments to launch into this, but it's been designed for a wider audience. While I've used some of your statements as examples, it isn't all directed at you, and absolutely none of my general statements has been directed solely at you. It would be extremely dishonest of me to not point that out.

To end on as good a note as may be possible at the moment, I'm in total 100% agreement on your last paragraph. It's obvious by now that there are some topics that set me off, and where confrontation becomes unavoidable. But in a larger sense, as this hopefully starts to wind down to civility again, it sometimes takes getting to that point for people to finally recognize that there are other opinions out there, just as valid as our own. And I'm not putting myself on a higher level there. In this particular discussion, I DO believe it's people on your side that are more in need of having to understand that, but in another setting it'll most assuredly be me who needs the lesson.

Well said, Nancy (#115). The second paragraph sums it up completely. That's all he ever does, is twists people's words around to "justify" attacking people personally.

I really know that God exists and loves every one of us; even Tom. Bionerd, I say it because it is the truth, not to "piss anyone off."

Once again, Tom. It's "everyone one else in the world but you," isn't it. I think most other people on here are adult enough to realize when they have said or done something wrong. But not Tom. He is too good for anyone else. He is perfect and doesn't make mistakes. Please teach me how to do it, Tom. I would love to learn from the master. Oh wait, I already am. The master is God (and Jesus), who both give us an excellent example to live by. Since you never make mistakes, you apparently have learned from them already, unknowingly. How does that make you feel, knowing you are following the Savior's example? :-)

Of course, I post #117 (your #116 hadn't come up yet, so I couldn't read it) and you appear to be somewhat apologetic and courteous. I think that was the nicest comment you have made on here. Congratulations!

:)

Adam #118, I hoped that was the case of your #117, so I'll not make any comments on that post.

As for being apologetic in #116, the apology was only for using Nancy's post as a springboard for a much larger post that went beyond a direct reply. I apologize for nothing, and stand behind everything, I've said so far. The purpose of the post was to start reining it in. The hostility from all sides has taken on a life of its own, and the basic arguments are starting to get lost behind the anger. I tire of it, as I'm sure your side does as well.

I recognize I put out some other posts prior to #116 that haven't been acknowledged yet. I don't want to give the impression that I'm taking my shots, then taking the high road so that replies to those others makes the writers look bad. That would look like I'm saying only my rules matter, and I'm certainly not going to allow myself a privilege I haven't tolerated from your side. I'll respond as needed, but with the full knowledge that #116, and this post, are now out there, and if I contradict what I've said in these, it's me who plays the fool.

In language Christians, other believers and atheists can all agree on...
PEACE!!

I am laughing right now. To quote you directly, "I apologize for nothing, and stand behind everything, I've said so far."

Thank you for supporting and reaffirming my point (as well as those of several others on here, especially Nancy).

I have long given up on trying to sway you. Actually, that never was my goal. I just kept trying to present my beliefs so that you would at least understand. I won't convince you on my beliefs, and you won't convince me on yours. That is a given. I was just hoping that inside of you somewhere there was a hint of decency that would allow you to see how hurtful you have been to "the believers."
Obviously you don't see that, and apparently you never will.

If is also funny to see you use the word "peace," when all you have done in this forum is try and destroy it. But enough is enough, right? Let's just drop it.

I don't think Tom is trying to destroy peace in this topic, much less in the whole forum. He's just stating his opinion in an arena that was none to peaceful even before he arrived. When people discuss strongly held beliefs, peace is not a normal outcome, but I think it is healthy anyway.

When Adam says "I say it because it is true," I'm afraid that is a dodge. If you were just saying true things, then you could say "the stop sign at the end of the street is red." This would come as no surprise to anyone, but neither does the fact that most Christians believe that God loves most everyone. But you choose to comment on God's love, not on the color of stop signs or on any of the other zillions of well-known true things. You must have a motive for that that goes beyond truth alone.

Though, come to think of it, I'm not so sure I'm so very clear on who God loves. Does God love Osama bin Laden?

Honestly, I think it's a ridiculous question. The very idea of anyone pretending to know the mind of God is not something I can take seriously.

Adam, as I said in my last two posts, I'm trying to rein in the hostility and bring this up to a civil level. That does NOT include retracting or apologizing for what I've said before. It only means doing my best to not continue it at the level it's been. I've never asked you to retract or apologize for anything you previously said. What makes you think you have the right to demand that from me or anyone else?

The limitation of my "apology" in #116 was clear. Your statement in #118 hinted that you may have misconstrued it. My #120 was in the interest of clarifying the apology, with the hope that you would accept it and join in moving the dialogue to a civil level. Apparently, my hope was misguided. Remember my earlier comments about your inability to recognize an answer you've been given, or in this case, rejecting an answer that isn't the one you want to hear? Seems I was pretty much on the mark, doesn't it?

You obviously have no such interest in bringing this up to a civil level. Fine, fume all you want. I'm not going to take the bait. You're the one who comes out looking like the childish brat who can't get his way. You also confirm everything I and some other have said about you. I hope you can live with that. No self-respecting person would be able to.

It's interesting that in your totally unwarranted tirade, you lash out at ME for using the word "peace". It speaks volumes.

But thank you for omitting the preaching from that last post. I'm sure it was a struggle for you, just as I'm sure you'll take this statement as a challenge to now tell me God loves me. Again, fine, do what you have to do. It'll just be further confirmation of which of us is trying to bring this to an adult level, and which has no interest in doing so.

Say whatever you want. It doesn't matter. You are just as much of a hypocrite as I am, if you think you can call me one fairly. You have said just as many inconsiderate things as I have, without apologizing for any rudeness or insensitive remarks. And the funniest thing is that you keep defending yourself on why you won't or don't need to apologize!!! How on earth that does make you better than I am? Or more justified? Or less childish? Or more mature? Only a true man will admit when he is wrong. Apparently you haven't hit puberty yet. Some people just take a few more years than others. Maybe I could prescribe you some testosterone? Just let me know if you want some.

Adam, you're a joke. My biggest error was in ever taking you seriously. But please, do go on. Continue to prove my point.

To the rest of you with whom I've had disagreements, I do respect your right to have different opinions on this issue than mine. Really I do. That no one else has written to me since my #116 (and #120) tells me you took my statements there as sincere, as well they were intended. Unfortunately, on the actual issue that began this discussion a scant month ago, you have Adam on your side of the aisle. And for that, you have MY pity.

Tom, Tom, Tom... the more you say "...you prove my point," you continue to prove mine. The fact that you don't respect my right to have a difference of opinion reiterates your lack of common decency. Real mature. Very few people take you seriously, anyway.

It is very presumptuous for you to say that people took your statements as sincere, just because they didn't respond yet. Did you ever stop to think that maybe no one has read your comments yet? Or that they have chosen to not respond due to apathy about what you say? Did you ever stop to think about that? Did you ever stop to think period? LOL

I just wish for one second that you would consider the things you have said and for once realize that I actually have a valid point.

Adam, you absolutely have a right to a difference of opinion. I never stated otherwise, and in fact have been pretty clear in my belief that you have that right. But once again, that ugly problem surfaces that if I don't say what you WANT me to have said to give you the ammunition you can then use against me, then I never actually said anything at all.

Yes, it's possible others (Judy specifically, and perhaps another from Nancy) haven't responded because they didn't see my posts, but we both know it's pretty unlikely that's the reason. Nancy quickly responded to #116, and probably didn't have a reason to respond to #120. Unlike you, I believe she accurately read #116, and her reply of a lone smiley face indicates she took me at my word. It was you alone that needed the clarification.

Judy may yet respond to #112, but if she does, she'll have no doubt read #116 before doing so. I'll address her reply in an appropriate civil fashion if there's a need to.

You say very few people take me seriously. Well, considering you're the only one who's keeping this feud festering, you have a serious lack of evidence backing up that claim.

But I'll make it easy on you and let you get in the last word. You will no doubt see it as some kind of "victory", but trust me, it isn't. I'm just really, really tired of you and your ignorance, and further arguing is just a waste of my time.

You don't think you keep this "feud" going? Who is it that replies to every comment I make? YOU, silly boy.

This discussion is over...please! :) Agree to disagree, that you've both said things you shouldn't have and be done with it. You two have very similar personalities and just come from different sides of the debate and that's why you keep butting heads.

I want the arguing to be done as much as you Telly, but I have two quick things to say:

1. Tom thank you for sharing part of your story. It honestly sounds a lot like my sister's, except I don't know which of "the a's" she would define herself as. She gave up going to church in high school, but she's still a good person (in fact I owe her for taking care of me last weekend when I was in trouble). She only goes to church on Christmas and Easter to make my mom happy.

2. Merili, even as a Chatholic, I have to agree with you that I hate hearing people preach that "God loves me" I hear it often where I go to work and it bothers me because the people preaching don't know anything about me or my beliefs. It may be a bit of a different reason then yours, but you are definately not alone in that feeling.

Jane, I don't entirely agree with you, but I too want the arguing to end, thus my last few posts. As a relative newcomer here, I'm unfamiliar with the personalities that others of you have gotten to know. I've come to realize that Adam picks fights just for the sake of doing so, and not knowing his history, I allowed him to sucker me into playing his game. That's ended, and I can now read his posts with a better knowledge of the child behind the words, and respond, or more likely NOT respond, accordingly. But yes, this particular discussion with him is over.

Jen, you're welcome, and your #2 is my objection as well, for the same reasons. In a neutral environment, we have no right to assume others share our views, thus what we may see as an innocent comment can be very objectionable, or downright offensive, to the listener. As Merili said, you can get away with it the first time, but once the listener makes clear his objections, saying it repeatedly displays an arrogant indifference to the other person, a behavior the speaker's god would abhor. Sadly, there are some people who simply refuse to ever learn that.

The only thing I will say to you concerning this issue is about one line you wrote... "I've come to realize that Adam picks fights just for the sake of doing so..."

You have absolutely no idea who I am, and you make a childish assumption that I just randomly pick fights. I defend myself when attacked, just as anyone else would do. So until you know me at all, quit assuming things. You have been wrong about every assumption so far concerning me.

I can't say I can remember a single flame war in this forum that Adam wasn't involved in, but I can't say I was impressed with Tom's saying "I want the arguing to end" and then calling Adam a "child" in the same paragraph. The argument doesn't end as long as you keep slinging insults.

I am a Type A personality, and very outgoing. I speak my mind, as does almost everyone else here. On my end, that's all it comes down to.

It's nice to finally see someone who is on the opposite side from me (meaning you, Jan) at least admit that Tom isn't perfect, and acknowledge that he at least has a smidgen of fault here. :-)

Jan, On your comment about me, I calls 'em as I sees 'em, but point taken. I confess that I do try sometimes to get in a parting shot if I can. I suppose in that respect, Adam and I aren't so very different.

On your comment about him, well, it does seem to confirm what I already realized and said. If someone is involved in every single flame war, chances are mighty good that that person started more than their fair share of them.

And just for the record, I've never claimed to be perfect.

In a way, yes you did. By never acknowledging any mistakes of your own, and by stating you have no fault at all in this, you have made that claim by default.

FOR DOG'S SAKE, ADAM, LET IT GO!!!!!

that is NOT funny

It wasn't meant to be, but thank you for sharing your opinion, such as it is.

such as it is? gee thanks a lot

Nancy, forget him. He is a completely idiotic, pathetic, immature, juvenile, moronic, hypocritical loser who will be going to hell. I don't care anymore. I used to want him to try and see reason, because I was concerned about his soul; now I don't. I have nothing to do with him anymore.

I have tried to be patient and understanding with him, yet he thinks he is too good for everyone. He thinks he is right in every point of view he makes. He refuses to acknowledge ANY fault of his, even though he is FILLED with them. He refuses to apologize for anything at all, from the smallest even unintentional oversight to blatantly gross errors. He refuses to listen to anyone else's point of view, because his is the only one that matters.

I am done with him. I am not going to acknowledge his presence anymore, after this post. Unlike him, I mean it and will of course follow through. He says he is done with me, yet he keeps responding. Let him respond. I won't read it. I will show him how to keep a man's word, which he apparently doesn't know how to do.

I guarantee he will respond to this and criticize me more, leaving him feeling like he has "won" this little fight (or however he phrased it earlier). The only thing he has won is a one-way ticket to the depths of hell. Good. I don't want his foul stench anywhere near me ever.

Jan, for whatever reason, you have disagreed with me on essentially everything we have ever discussed on this website, no matter the topic. I don't know why that is, but it doesn't matter. You have your reasons. And although you don't care about me or even respect me at all (which is your choice, obviously) I still respect you. You at least have been respectful and fair for the most part, even when completely biased, which is what earns that respect. Mr. S., however, has lost even the smallest respect that I still held for him, which respect I only had because of his being a human being.

The last thing I will post on this forum is this. Tom, I feel so sorry for you. I pity you. You are a sad, sad soul. God is real. He exists. He loves so much! You know deep down in your small heart that He lives, but for whatever inexcusable reason you fail to accept that. And you will regret the day you ever denied Him. Mark my words. If you choose to respond to what I have written, I will never know, nor will I care. I am not ever going to respond to your pitiful excuse of an existence. Let all the other people who care about what you may say read any of the rubbish that you may write. I will stick to my words and not respond to you ever. You have ceased to exist.

Whew! I feel so much better now!

You're welcome.

Nancy, I'm not trying to start anything again, but this is an accidental example of what has been one of the problems in this discussion. In and of itself, my phrasing was NOT offensive. "dog's", "god's", "pete's", "watermelon's". Who's to say that any of those is any more or less valid an expression than any other?

Did I mean "dog" as a lighthearted reversal of "god"? Did I mean it as an evil demonic reversal? Or did I simply mean it as my my friend Fido, to whom I may also make pledges ("I swear to dog"). You don't know, yet you took offense. But you did so based on YOUR ASSUMPTION of what you think I meant. And therein lies one of the problems that has permeated this discussion.

Adam's criticized me for making assumptions. Perhaps I have (and boy will he be happy to see me say THAT). But this simple example shows that I was far from the only one. To varying extents, no doubt we all did.

Like #116, I apologize for directing this larger point at you, but once again, it was your post that opened the door allowing me to make it. And I also apologize if this comes across as a lecture or insult. It's meant as neither.

Man, everytime I think this conversation is done it comes back. At least it look properly over this time.

PLEASE all of you, PARTICIPATE IN WC # 18 !!!!

Seems good that we all stopped commenting. It took a while to read through all of the comments.

Oof, that was a journey. Sadly, I don't think that most of the original commenters are members of the site anymore.

I can say that, from reading other comments by Adam throughout this site, I was SURPRISED to learn that he was a devout Christian. Let's just say that he never took "love thy neighbor" to heart. ;)

:-)

Kristen, I still am, but with so many puzzles still unsolved, I tend to focus on the easier ones, which aren't necessarily the current ones, so I don't get involved in the active discussions. I'm not sure all these years later how I managed to stumble into this one when it was so new, but I'm glad I did. I periodically check back to see if there are new comments from people who have only recently found it, and I was surprised to find some here 12 years later.

Everyone defines their own level of "devout" and Christianity seems to run along a VERY long continuum. I agree with your comment based on the church in which I was raised, but looking at fundamentalism 12 years ago and its evil stepchild, Christian Nationalism, I have no problem accepting that Adam saw himself as devout.

May I ask if there was a reason for referring to him in the past tense?

He hasn't logged on in many years, and someone found an obituary, which MAY have been his. All pure speculation, of course.

Also, the obituary was dated only a few days after he and all of his aliases (like bugaboo) had last logged in.

Yes. Though Adam's last postings here were a day or two before that obituary, so maybe?

I looked up that discussion. It was in the thread for puzzle 4707:
https://webpbn.com/4707

(Joe's posting #151 was posted while I was wading through the 150 previous comments, so I hadn't seen it when I posted #152.)

Sigh... It is strange to read through a discussion where dead and probably-dead people talk about the afterlife.

I was thinking the same thing, Valerie. I also find it strange for people to make God so man-like in his actions.

This is all very strange to me. I said in #149 that I check in periodically and was surprised to see new comments after 12 years. The last one was five months ago, yet when I replied, Kristen responded the same day, and three others did the day after that (today). I take it other people check in on these things periodically also, and perhaps a lot more often.

I have my notification settings at "new comments on puzzles I have solved", so as long as I check the forum regularly, I see the new comments.

Also, I thought I'd already shared this delightful "hymn": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wogta8alHiU

If you've solved a great number of puzzles, the new comments list can get very long. I went through and "looked" at all of them so now I am up to date.

Tom - I periodically go to Forum and select "New replies to your postings," so if I've been logging in and I've posted in a thread, I'll usually see any replies fairly soon.

I do the same as Valerie!

I just explored the forum and found those choices. I didn't think I would be all that interested in new comments on those where I've previously commented, other than a short list I've maintained for years. I thought wrong. It's actually been kind of cool catching up. Thanks for the tip.

It's endlessly fascinating!

Show: Spoilers

Goto next topic

You must register and log in to be able to participate in this discussion.