MusicIsMotion wrote: 

Then, it would seem, there is no point in debating or even discussing it.  Or thinking about it, for that matter.

 steeler wrote: 
Well, for one thing, I can't speak for "those".  Secondly, perhaps it's your perception that leads you to believe that I may be bothered when I'm actually not.  Good news is something we all share with one another.  This is the best news in the world.  Thirdly, yes... it's a no-brainer.  Too much "brain-time" with this matter will lead one to all sorts of reasons not to believe.  This "faith thing" is all heart.  Brains botch it up.  Fact.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I think John Loftus would call this the "Outsiders Test for Faith", am I right?

When believers criticize the other faiths they reject, they use reason and science to do so. They assume these other religions have the burden of proof. They assume human not divine authors to their holy book(s). They assume a human not a divine origin to their faiths. Believers do this when rejecting other faiths. So dispensing all of the red herrings about morality and a non-material universe, the OTF simply asks believers to do unto their own faith what they do unto other faiths. All it asks of them is to be consistent. The OTF asks why believers operate on a double standard. If that's how they reject other faiths then they should apply that same standard to their own. Let reason and science rather than faith be their guide. Assume your own faith has the burden of proof. Assume human rather than divine authors to your holy book(s) and see what you get. If there is a divine author behind the texts it should be known even with that initial skeptical assumption. So the OTF uses the exact same standard that believers use when rejecting other religions. If there is any inconsistency at all it is not with the OTF. It is how believers assess truth claims. For it should only take a moment’s thought to realize that if there is a God who wants people born into different religious cultures to believe, who are outsiders, then that religious faith SHOULD pass the OTF. If Christians want to reject the OTF then either they must admit they have a double standard for examining religious faiths, one for their own faith and a different one for others, or their faith was not made to pass the OTF in the first place. In either case all of their arguments against the OTF are based on red herrings, special pleading, begging the question, the denigrating science, and an ignorance that I can only attribute to delusional blindness.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/06/ouitsider-test-for-faith-otf-is-not.html

 Lazy8 wrote: 
What question are you specifically referring to?

Church was a babysitter for me.  I was dropped off there by a widowed mother who never attended with me.  It was never spoken about or brought up in my latchkey-kid household.   My mother committed adultery with a married man for 25 years.  I spent my childhood alone, teenage years with a radio and a pack of cigarettes every evening in an empty parking lot pondering life and answering my own questions.  I grew up to be a 3-time divorced, adulterous, alcoholic, drug-addicted, selfish, violent man who every excuse I could find to justify my actions.  I treated people like shit and if you scroll back a few years on this forum, you'll see a definitive difference in what I used to post and what I post now.  I was an angry, bitter, lonely person who, up until a year and a half ago, came home, got high and spent the evening in a hot-tub alone with a pint of whiskey crying and pleading with God to save me and he did.

I don't drink at all anymore.  I don't do drugs at all anymore.  I'm faithful to my wife.  I have an extremely addictive personality.  Leaving those vices behind me was like being reborn and it was painful.  So, how  much do you think you knew about what I was brought up with again?

And by the way, after all of the times that I've stated my admiration for your mind and personality, where exactly did "making you my enemy" come from?  I hope you'll forgive me, but I'm a tad confused at this point. 

 MusicIsMotion wrote: 

I disagree (bolded sentence), for the reasons put forth in my posts from last night on this thread.

Your post contends that this is a choice, not forced. Yet, you then set forth an argument that the choice really is a no-brainer for anyone who . .. already has made the choice to believe.  

If it truly is a personal choice, why are some of those who have made the choice to believe seemingly so bothered that others have not made that same choice?

    

  

 p4jkafla wrote: 
"Faith", by its primary definition, is a belief, devoid of, or not requiring physical evidence - I'm not sure why so many people are either unaware of that or choose to ignore it.  I think anyone can be closed-minded or open-minded, whether they are believers or not - the two variables are not exclusively one way or another.  I have certainly met religious folks and atheistic folks with very closed minds, just as I have met people of the same leanings with very open minds.

 MusicIsMotion wrote: 
I notice they never answer that question.

You believe all that because you were brought up to. If you had been brought up in Tibet you would believe a whole different list of things, with exactly the same evidence: that the people who raised you were convinced, and nothing more.

It's all you need, and it's none of my business. But if you want to make me an enemy that is your call, not mine. I want no fight with anyone.

 MusicIsMotion wrote: 
Close your mind? I would hope you don't think atheists close their minds. In fact, if anything, it is a mind opening experience.

I'm fascinated by people who believe as you do, because there is no evidence WHAT SO EVER that anything you've stated here is true.

(edit: Oh...and I just want to add that I respect your perspective, but the phrase "closing your mind" is an inflamatory one, and not one I would use regarding anyone who ponders life's big questions)

 MusicIsMotion wrote: 
...and this is why I don't believe.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
One of the things that we Christians jokingly say to one another is:  "Hey.. are you foolish enough to believe in the resurrection that you didn't witness?"

Your choice to close your mind to anything but tangibility and your refusal believe and to abandon what you feel like you were forced to is still a choice.  The sheer reason that God doesn't reveal himself to mankind anymore is because non-sight-based faith is key to salvation.  Jesus Christ paid for our sins as the only perfect, sinless mortal that ever did and ever will walk the Earth.  God directs us to steer with our hearts, therefore to be guided by it openly and to ultimately protect it.  We walk on a broken plane of existence and what's "tangible" to us is Satan's realm.  It is full of lies and the laws of man.  It is misguided.  We are earning our way into a Holy existence with God.  It's free, it's a gift but it is CHOSEN, not forced.  There are consequences, or results, to any choice we make.  In this case, one leads to bliss and eternal happiness beyond what our mortal minds can comprehend... the ultimate plane of existence.  The other leads to damnation and isolation in eternal suffering.  Many great men have made the comment "If you are not for us, you are against us".  It's absolute truth because not making a choice is a choice.  There is no neutral ground.  That comment is famous because God said it before anyone else.

God is a Concept by which
we measure our pain
I'll say it again
God is a Concept by which
we measure our pain
I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in Tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in Mantra
I don't believe in Gita
I don't believe in Yoga
I don't believe in Kings
I don't believe in Elvis
I don't believe in Zimmerman
I don't believe in Beatles
I just believe in me...and that reality

 hippiechick wrote: 
But can they be opened further?

 hippiechick wrote: 
I have no idea. I doubt it's genetic, but then I doubt a lot of things.

"I don't have faith in faith
 I don't believe in belief
 You can call me faithless
 I still cling to hope
 And I believe in love
 And that's faith enough for me"

; Peart, I believe.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Choosing to be atheist is like choosing to be gay. Once your eyes have been open, they cannot be closed again.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 

Which one of us gets to be the muse?
Mmmmmm . ...  scones.

 winter wrote: 
Interesting that you (and so many others) find this so. If I could have chosen what seemed true to me I would have stayed a Catholic. I couldn't convince myself, despite dire warnings of eternal damnation and the threat of many more hours fondling rosary beads. I think I'm going to have to insist that you speak for yourself on this one.

When I was led out to walk on the water and found that (like everybody else) I was just knee-deep in the surf I couldn't pretend I was dry. It wasn't a choice in my case, it was a conclusion. An inevitable one.

As for validity...I don't need anybody's approval but mine for my life, and neither does anybody else. I don't think these are the same thought at all, but the same conclusion: my life is mine, your life is yours—guide it any way you like.

 steeler wrote: 
Oh grief, it was about as light and fluffy as an unleavened scone. Sorry everyone. I'll try to come up with a better version when the muse hits me.

 MusicIsMotion wrote: 

...Canuckistani know...

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

Yeah!

I saw it this morning, and was going to read it when I had a moment.